Internet Gambling: Age Verification

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions they have had with the banking industry to prevent young people from using credit and debit cards to finance Internet activities, especially gambling, from which they should be precluded by reason of their age.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the final responsibility for age verification rests with the online gambling industry. We welcome the Remote Gambling Association's code of practice on social responsibility, which it will make a condition of membership. We are also supportive of the efforts that the industry is making to engage the banking sector on this issue. My noble friend Lord McIntosh, the then Minister for gambling regulation, wrote to the banking sector to encourage its co-operation during the passage of the Gambling Act, and several meetings at official level have since taken place.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the charity GamCare and I thank my noble friend for his reply. His comments about the code of practice produced by the Remote Gambling Association will be widely shared throughout the industry and among those concerned with the problem of gambling. However, is he aware that children as young as 11 are able to obtain debit cards such as the Solo card from high street banks which are then used to finance illegal purchases of Internet gambling and other items available on the Internet such as knives? Does he not agree that it is time that the banks themselves took some responsibility for proper proof of age verification before they allow their cards to be used in this irresponsible way?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that there are some problems regarding the issue of credit cards, but he will recognise that when credit cards are used for gambling, which is the concern of my department, it is for the industry to carry out verification checks. I know that the banking industry is anxious about credit cards being misdirected.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, will the noble Lord take my assurance that the use of credit and debit cards in gambling is carefully policed at least by the major operators in the field? It is in their interest not only to remain squeaky clean in the new betting environment, but also to deal only with the right people because of the risks they run if they do not. But it is not credit cards that are the problem, because they are extremely difficult to get from an online company; rather it is debit cards, which young people can access. Further, is the noble Lord aware that the leading company in the field, with whom I have just spoken, employs six people whose day-to-day job is to ensure that young people do not have access to gambling accounts using their debit cards?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the gambling industry is fully apprised of the implications of the Gambling Act, which has very much toughened up the requirements placed on the industry. As the noble Viscount indicated, the issue of verification is important particularly in relation to children under 16 who seek to place bets. The industry is all too well aware that it needs to show that it has robust systems in place. I think that the House will recognise that the leading companies in the area of gambling via the Internet, a more recent development, also are keen to safeguard their reputations. That is why the code of practice has been introduced.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I seem to recall that when I was a Minister in the Home Office it was not possible to use a credit card to settle a gambling debt. Was it not this Government who liberalised that, and is it not a bit strange that a Government who keep telling us how concerned they are about the exposure of young people to gambling and alcohol have chosen at the same time to liberalise the legislation which has protected them?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it might also seem a little strange to be challenged on liberalisation from the particular source of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I emphasise that the Gambling Act ensures that the industry meets the requirements of the legislation with regard to its operations. As I indicated, the industry is all too well aware of its responsibilities in this area. There is a particular problem about young people getting access to credit through false identification or because, as my noble friend indicated, now and again credit cards are misdirected to juniors. But it is for the gambling organisations to carry out the verification and some very robust systems are in place.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in the light of that reply, is the Minister now satisfied that the age verification software to block online registration has in fact been sufficiently installed by the gambling industry?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for that question. We are not satisfied because there are some weak links and we know of a small number of abuses that have taken place. We are constrained to ensure that the verification systems become both robust and universal. That is why we have been talking with the banks and why we are eager to ensure that the code of conduct reinforces that in the industry.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it is up to the banks and other industries to ensure that they undertake responsible lending. However, there is growing concern at the number of children who are able to gamble. I know that the Government do not believe that children and gambling go together. Have they given any further thought to whether Ofcom should be given responsibility for monitoring what is going on in the growing online industry and specific responsibility for reporting back on these matters so that we, the public, know what is happening?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that the Government want to make sure that gambling is not carried out by children under 16. That is why, for instance, the National Lottery has the most robust system of all on age verification and can point to a considerable record over the years of ensuring that children do not play. There are problems across the wide range of the gambling industry. That is why we introduced the Gambling Act to modernise our capacity for regulation where it is necessary. We expect the industry to respond to this regulation, as it has clearly shown it intends to do, through the code of practice with which every reputable gambling organisation will be expected to comply

Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister said that the industry has a verification process which he agrees works well both electronically and manually. But does he also agree that the great danger at the moment lies with the Treasury? If the Treasury increases the tax rate on Internet gambling organisations based in this country, they will just go abroad. It will then be impossible to verify whether foreign-based operators are behaving as they should.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are concerned about foreign-based gambling facilities, which are quite extensive. British operations on the Internet are in the minority. We are taking steps, for instance, to ensure that unless an organisation complies with the code of practice and meets our standards we will restrict its capacity to advertise its facilities in Europe. We will need a Europe-wide decision on that, but we are fully apprised of the issue to which the noble Viscount rightly draws attention.

Looked-after Children

Baroness Buscombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of the White Paper Higher Standards, Better Schools for All what role the school improvement partners will play in ensuring children in care are integrated into the education system.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, school improvement partners, who are replacing the old system of school link advisers, are largely serving or former head teachers of good standing. They have an important role in discussing with head teachers how effectively each school is performing for all its pupils. The department has issued guidance to school improvement partners, which includes questions about how schools support looked-after children and how their needs are fully reflected in school policies.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that the whole focus of the education White Paper is upon parent power and parent responsibility? That is good as far as it goes, but what about all those thousands of children who do not have parents prepared to engage? What about the children in care—or looked-after children, as they are now called? The Minister knows that they receive scant attention in the White Paper, so can he assure the House that during any consultations on this issue in 2006 the Government will seriously consider practical measures that can genuinely improve their life chances?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we do not accept that looked-after children receive scant attention in the White Paper—a whole section is devoted to them. However, the noble Baroness makes the important point that looked-after children require the active engagement of local authorities as their corporate parents in all fields of their activity, including education. That is why we will be issuing guidance very shortly to local education authorities on how they should fulfil their duties to looked-after children.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in the light of the greater autonomy to be gained by schools, what leverage do school improvement partners and the local authorities that appoint them have in persuading schools to change their admissions policies where those schools are found not to be admitting the correct number of children in care?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the code of practice currently requires schools to have regard to the need to give first priority to looked-after children. We will be laying regulations before the House next month that will place on all schools, including foundation schools, voluntary-aided schools and community schools, a requirement that they give first priority in their admissions to looked-after children. I believe that we already have very robust protections in place for looked-after children and that we will have failsafe protections in place after the regulations have been laid.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if children are to thrive in their education, they need two things—love and success—and that, sadly, far too many children in care lack both? How will the Government seek to ensure that these children, whether integrated or otherwise, receive care that is real and not just notional?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point about the needs of looked-after children. In the guidance, we will be requiring local authorities to ensure that they have in place personal education plans for all looked-after children so that they can develop to their fullest potential. We will also ensure that no care placements are made where there are not education placements to go alongside them and that, where an emergency placement is made, an education placement should be arranged within 20 days of that placement. Many of the wider issues to which my noble friend referred relate directly to the quality, status and support of the social work profession, which provides the corporate parenting for so many looked-after children. We are seeking significantly to upgrade the quality of the social work profession.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in the light of his earlier reply to the noble Baroness, will the Minister confirm the Government's awareness of the Church of England's advice to its Church schools to put looked-after children at the head of the queue when considering admissions?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am aware of that advice. We believe that it plays an important role in respect of Church schools.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I heard the noble Lord use the phrase "corporate parenting" twice. Is he aware that that is very close to an oxymoron? Corporate care is, I think, an oxymoron. What is being done to give these individual children individual adults who care for them individually?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we have extensive measures in place to promote foster parenting. That is the most important area in which we are seeking to meet the noble Lord's point.

Speed Cameras

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultation about the future siting of speed cameras has taken place with the local communities involved.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the department does not issue prescriptive guidance to local authorities about such consultation. Local authorities are expected to consult with communities and other stakeholders, as they would for any other road safety remedial measure. The majority of cameras operating within the safety camera programme are at sites where there is a history of speeding, accidents and casualties. In addition, there is flexibility within the rules to use cameras at sites of concern raised by the community.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that most of the publicity about speed cameras comes from the motoring lobby and motoring press and that the cameras provide protection for many people? I wonder whether, in order to get a balanced picture, the Government should not instigate some consultation with local people, to see what they think about cameras.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have indicated, that is for the local authorities to initiate. But I am grateful to the noble Lord, because his question gives me the opportunity to indicate to the House how successful the camera programme has been. The number of vehicles speeding at new camera sites fell by 32 per cent last year; the number speeding by more than 15 miles per hour fell by 43 per cent; and average speeds at new sites fell by about 7 per cent. The cameras are having their effect and, as the noble Lord indicated, it is easy to dramatize the inevitable profound irritation that drivers experience when they fall foul of the cameras, but it is not so easy to tap into the great public benefit from the fact that we are saving lives.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are many people living in villages and other vulnerable areas who despair because, due to the somewhat callous and mechanistic nature of the present formula for installing speed cameras, the chances of getting any in their particular area are pretty well nil? Would he therefore undertake with his colleagues to re-examine this formula and perhaps in doing so take on board the useful suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about local intervention and input?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are awaiting the evaluation of the fourth year of the camera programme and we will take all these matters into consideration. But the noble Lord will recognise that, although there may be frustrations in certain parts of the country about the issue of speed limits, if we are successful in making the general motoring public more aware of the dangers of excessive speed, then that will without a doubt obtain in areas where there are no cameras but where there are speed limits.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, given the Minister's earlier answer, should we not increase the number of road safety cameras used if thereby more lives are saved and we generate income for local authorities and chief constables, to be used for other good road safety purposes?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have indicated there are strict limitations on the revenue-raising processes from cameras and the way in which the resources can be used. My noble friend will recognise that, important as it is to increase expenditure on road safety, it is also most important that we condition driving behaviour. That is the crucial single factor with regard to accidents—it is well attested through all research—and therefore we need to take the confidence of the motoring public with us, that the cameras are fulfilling a proper purpose and are in the right places.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the Minister encourage an end to the current practice of putting warnings of speed cameras and speed cameras themselves on long stretches of road where there is no indication of the legal speed limit?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is a statutory requirement that there is an indication of what the speed limit should be close to the camera. I am aware that from time to time it is contended that that does not occur. Sometimes signs can be obscured, and we are concerned about repeater signs for the public so that they are aware of the limits. But I fail to think that there are drivers in this country who see a yellow box very prominently displayed indicating clearly that it is a road camera and do not know that there is a speed limit in force and what that speed limit is.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, while, of course, we accept that speed kills, is my noble friend aware of the interesting fact that the Chief Constable of Durham has a policy of not using fixed speed cameras at all and that the accident figures in Durham compare very favourably with those in other police areas?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, Durham has many claims to fame. Other chief constables of course take a different view. We are evaluating the fourth year of the speed camera programme to measure the effect of the cameras, and that will enable us to make a judgment on what at times appear to be alternative views of what is best for the safety of the road travelling public.

Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I accept all that the Minister says about the importance of controlling speed and traffic control, but will he help me with a temptation that I face on the A12? In 2.5 miles of serious road repairs outside our house, we have no fewer than 14 cameras, two of which are situated just at the point of deregulation. Would he help me with the temptation that I might believe that this is as much about revenue raising as it is about speed control?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not about revenue raising, but it is the case that we are particularly concerned about areas in which there are roadworks, because the statistics establish that that is where a number of accidents occur. If the right reverend Prelate is saying that there is an excessive degree of warning on that particular stretch, I shall certainly look into it. But the right reverend Prelate is safely here, so at least we can thank the speed cameras in that respect.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister believe that speed cameras are conditioning drivers to drive more slowly, in the light of the fact that the Minister of State at the Department for Transport last night on "Top Gear" admitted that he had nine points on his licence for speeding?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, everyone is vulnerable when in control of a vehicle. For a large percentage of the time we are all perfectly secure, but everyone can make a mistake; but we all know the consequences of accumulated mistakes. One offer that we make to those who make mistakes is a speed awareness course which sounds, I know, to many of the general public like an easy option. The only thing that we can attest to is that all members of the public who have undertaken such a course have been very sharply reminded of the dangers of speed and have taken the course very seriously, and it is working to cope with the issue of accumulated points.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have the Government made any evaluation of the effectiveness of the roadside speed indicator devices, which show motorists what speed they are doing in a controlled area? If so, could the Minister say what the results have been?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has identified another important road safety aspect—not the cameras that lead to fines but the cameras or signals that give a warning and are effective in reducing speeds. I believe that he is referring to those signals which flash up the speed at which the approaching car is going. They appear to be very effective indeed, but they are expensive to employ, and where they should be employed is up to local consultation. But the noble Lord has identified an important contribution to road safety.

Mouth Cancer

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of mouth cancer, in view of the link with alcohol and tobacco consumption.

Lord Warner: My Lords, oral cancer is largely preventable through the promotion of smoking cessation and sensible drinking, which are both areas that we are tackling. We have also funded the Cancer Research UK campaign, Open Up to Mouth Cancer, launched earlier this month to alert people to the signs and symptoms of oral cancer. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has published guidance on improving outcomes in head and neck cancers, which includes mouth cancer, to ensure that high-quality services are provided throughout the country.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I am grateful that the campaign has been launched. Is he aware, though, that one of the specialists at the top cancer hospital in this country said that most of the cases they see are already far advanced? The difficulty has been that these people have attended their GP, said they had a sore throat and asked for an antibiotic. That has cured the symptoms without recognition of the disease. Is it not important that more mouth examinations are carried out by doctors or dentists, or even by people themselves? If they have any persistent discomfort or doubt about their mouth or throat they should be looking, in the same way that those who have breast cancer are able to self-diagnose and refer for treatment.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. Cancer Research UK's campaign, which I mentioned, is providing material for every GP, dentist and pharmacist, helping them to recognise the early signs of mouth cancer and prioritise referrals. The Department of Health has also commissioned a computerised distance-learning programme to update dentists' knowledge of the symptoms. The new dentist's contract will also promote prevention and give dentists more time to undertake examination of the mouth.

Lord Chan: My Lords, what is the Department of Health doing about vulnerable groups who can get mouth cancer, such as men in low-skilled jobs and some ethnic minority groups?

Lord Warner: My Lords, this is the focal point of Cancer Research UK's campaign. It is targeting these particular groups that are most at risk.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, given that we know there is a hugely increased risk of mouth cancer from excessive drinking or tobacco consumption, will the Minister now look at whether we might label alcohol products with the danger of mouth cancer, in the same way as we label tobacco products about, in particular, the risk of lung cancer?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we keep all these issues under review, but we are taking a lot of action to tackle the problems around excessive alcohol consumption, and the noble Baroness is quite right that heavy drinkers and smokers have 38 times the risk of mouth cancer compared with abstainers from both products.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, does the Minister agree that mouth cancer is one of the less common cancers, and that the provision of and access to high-quality services for patients with mouth cancer is to a large extent reliant on the existence of high-quality cancer networks? What steps are being taken to promote the role of cancer networks in the commissioning of cancer services?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we know that NICE published guidance on improving outcomes in head and neck cancers, including mouth cancer, in November 2004. This will ensure that services are configured to provide the appropriate high quality. Cancer networks are producing action plans setting out how they will implement this guidance over a three-year period.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in my local surgery in the country there was a large notice warning you about mouth cancer and telling you to see your doctor if you had a problem? It was very prominent.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear about that.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, according to the latest figures I can find, 44.6 per cent of adults are registered with an NHS dentist. Does the Minister agree that for the 50 per cent-plus of patients who are not registered, early detection of mouth cancer—a disease that has risen by a quarter in the past 10 years—is just not possible?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said earlier, we are not just relying on dentists, although the noble Lord will know we have announced that we have exceeded our target of recruiting the whole-time equivalent of 1,000 more dentists within a year. We are also relying on pharmacists and doctors to help with the detection—including the early detection—of oral cancer.

Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is above all in economically disadvantaged areas that registration with dentists is low, but that it is exactly in those areas that public houses are to be exempt from the proposed ban on smoking? Does that not point up a major shortcoming in the Government's policy on smoking?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the target groups are very much those that the noble Earl mentioned. However, this Government are to be congratulated on the Second Reading of the Health Bill in the other place, which takes place today, and which will produce a ban in 99 per cent of workplaces.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how many cases of mouth cancer are there every year, and how many are related to the consumption of alcohol or tobacco? Is there any clinical evidence that that is so?

Lord Warner: My Lords, around 4,400 people are diagnosed with mouth cancer each year, and around 1,600 people die from it each year. As I said, heavy drinkers and smokers have 38 times the risk of contracting mouth cancer compared with those who abstain from taking those products.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, while it is obviously highly desirable that GPs should display the cancer campaign material in their surgeries, is it not more likely to reach the target group if this material could be displayed in the pubs and clubs where excessive drinking takes place?

Lord Warner: My Lords, apart from running a national campaign, Cancer Research UK has chosen a number of areas and populations at particularly high risk of mouth cancer for particular attention. Those include Gateshead and the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Compulsory surrender of old-form licences]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Leave out Clause 29.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I have read very carefully our debates in Committee and with the passage of time I find them no more reassuring than I did at the time. Indeed, I find the situation even more disturbing. We still have no clear justification for this sweeping power to recall all existing driving licences, no justification for charging motorists for this bureaucracy, no costing of the process, no statement of what the charge to motorists will be and no denial of the obvious potential link to the identity card project.
	There is a growing suspicion that the Government are being less than candid with the public about their ID card plans. I absolve the Minister from this; he has always been very helpful to the House; but he needs to say today whether the Government will rule out ever designating driving licences as documents with which people will be made to register with the ID cards scheme when they seek a new one. If he cannot give that categoric assurance, there must be one obvious conclusion—the Government are designing this gigantic bureaucratic engine to recall and reissue all driving licences at least partly in order to force people into the ID cards scheme. It is hard to see what other purpose there could be. After all, in Committee the Minister gave three rather flimsy explanations as to why this sweeping new power was required. On 17 October (at col. 665 of the Official Report) he said that it was nothing to do with Europe. It is odd, though, that the existing photo licences are in a common form and bear the EU flag, but, of course, I accept unreservedly what he said. These clauses are nothing to do with Europe. Therefore, it must be a purely internal policy consideration that is driving a potentially massive bureaucratic exercise to recall all existing driving licences.
	The Minister said (at cols. 665-6 of the Official Report) that the matter was to do with security, nothing more, nothing less. He said that almost every day there was a case of fraudulent abuse of identity involving paper licences. One case a day does not seem to me to be massive in the context of tens of millions of licences in issue, but I grant that the matter needs addressing. However, does it require this massive sledgehammer built at undisclosed cost to the taxpayer and inconvenience to the public to deal with it?
	The Minister said (at col. 668 of the Official Report) that we need to improve the quality of the paper licence. Frankly, that could be done in time and is being done without these powers. The Minister said that there were already 20 million photograph licences in circulation, with 2 million being added each year.
	That would mean 22 million possible recalls of photo licences under this clause if it were decided to recall them all or limit their term of validity for less than the existing 10 years. Is there any assurance that the Government will not do that? We would like some explanations on these points as there were none in Committee.
	The Minister said that he could not be drawn on the cost of the process, nor could he say what charges would be imposed on motorists who have perfectly legal documents withdrawn so that they have to get new ones. He said nothing about the concern that I have raised about ID cards. When I asked about a link to ID cards, the Minister said:
	"I would be straying somewhat far afield from my brief if I discussed the issue of identity cards, which the Committee will recognise are the subject of intensive consultation at the present time".—[Official Report, 17/10/05; col. 667.]
	That is hardly illuminating. It is widely acknowledged by those involved that part of the Government plan to force people to volunteer for ID cards and be registered on the national ID register is to designate driving licences under Clause 4 of the Identity Cards Bill and force people to be registered when they apply for a driving licence. Indeed, you would not be allowed to drive unless you agreed to be registered in the Prime Minister's ID register. By a pincer movement of designating both passports and driving licences it is hoped that in the shortest time 80 per cent of the population will be forced to volunteer to be registered. Perhaps the Minister did not know that; if not I hope that it is helpful to the House for me to have informed him. If he did know that, I hope that he will be a little more forthcoming on this occasion about the intention of the Government if it is so, and if it is not so that he will be forthcoming in a firm undertaking to Parliament that driving licences will never be a designated document under the Identity Cards Act.
	Even if the ID card issue were not involved I would be cautious about the need for the powers being taken here. The justifications given are slight, the cost and inconvenience are potentially enormous and the bureaucracy is unnecessary and avoidable. A potential link to the ID card scheme would be better made in the Identity Cards Bill, rather than taking powers in this legislation to facilitate it. I see no proportionate case for these powers, and I believe that they should be omitted from the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I agree almost entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said. We believe that the identity card as proposed, as far as we know, is a way of getting people on to the identity card register. We are concerned about what information is to be carried on the driving licence; are they in fact to be surrogate identity cards? What sort of charges are people going to be forced to pay, both now and in the future, for what is going to be a quasi-identity card? Is this not a way of getting around the debate in which this House is already engaged with the Government on the future of identity cards?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, although the arguments have not advanced a great deal since Committee. Let me deal with the suspicion that has been articulated that this is all about the identity cards legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, thought that it would be better if the driving licence issue was brought within that legislation.
	In the Identity Cards Bill there is provision for any official document to be designated. That would mean that in order to obtain the designated document—for example a passport or driving licence—an applicant would have to possess an identity card. But there are no plans at present so to designate the driving licence. I sought to make that clear in Committee. Any order to designate the driving licence would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny under the terms of the Bill, and that scrutiny would be through affirmative resolution procedure. So we are making it as obvious as we can that if in due course that was thought to be desirable, Parliament would have to consider it as a separate issue through the affirmative procedure.
	But we are not anticipating that that will happen and we are not making provision for it to happen. If the driving licence remains a non-designated document, an applicant may be offered the option of proving his identity by evidence of an entry on the national identity register. That would be voluntary, as against the current procedure in which applicants have to submit physical evidence of identity, such as a passport, to the DVLA. Officials are liaising with the Home Office to examine how that would work. Therefore, if, as I think it is, the main burden of the noble Lord's amendment is that this is all a precursor to the Identity Cards Bill, I am merely indicating that our thinking is very different from that.
	Why are we concerned about the driving licence? First, when I say, as I did in Committee, that it has nothing to do with Europe, I meant to imply—I hope to clarify this matter now—that it is not imposed on us by any European legislation or directive. It has something to do with Europe in that some fraud is perpetrated in European countries by people using British driving licences, which in their present form are rather inadequate as identification, in other European countries. Those people obtain the opportunity to drive and then succeed in getting into Britain as drivers without ever having passed the test.
	How many cases are involved? The noble Lord says that there are not many, and he is right—the number is not huge. I believe we identified 60 cases last year. But, as the noble Lord freely stated, it is fraud. That should be dealt with and we are seeking to do so. There are many other illustrations of occasions when these cards are used—not abroad but in the United Kingdom—in counterfeit ways. The police bring to the attention of the DVLA some 300 counterfeit licences a year. The DVLA provides the police with witness statements confirming that a licence is counterfeit.
	Perhaps I may make the obvious point. First, the right to drive is a privilege, not an automatic right; it is a privilege won through competence so that one is safe on the road. Secondly, the whole House will recognise that there is often a strong correlation between the right to drive—particularly the opportunity taken to drive at excessive speeds—and criminal activity. I recognise that there are many features which increase crime in our society and therefore I will not make this point too strongly, but if there is one feature which contributes to criminality, it is the use of the motor car for access to the place where the crime is going to be perpetrated and for the getaway. We all know that, and that is why we are concerned about the right to drive and whether people are fraudulently able to avail themselves of these rights.
	I remind noble Lords that this is a Road Safety Bill. I cannot think of anything that countermands the concept of road safety more than a person in control of a vehicle which can travel legally at speeds of 70 miles per hour and, in the hands of some people who have never qualified to drive because they have counterfeit records, a good deal faster than that.
	Last year, the police also brought to the DVLA's attention approximately 1,200 cases where the individual had set up more than one identity on the DVLA's record. Some of the more extreme cases result in several separate identities being recorded. I wonder why that should be so if it does not indicate a level of criminal activity that has been easier to pursue than it would be under our new proposals.
	The noble Lord then spoke about inordinate costs. I recognise that cost factors are involved and I believe he will forgive me—although I am not sure that he is in a forgiving mood today—if I am unable, at this stage, to cost this issue. I am not in a position to do that. I shall give way to the noble Earl.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord says "at this stage". How long have the Government had to work out how much it will cost? This stage is the last stage of the Bill—not the first stage. I understand that this fact may not have been known when the Bill went through the Commons, but for the Government not to have any idea how much it will cost at the last stage of this Bill in this House does not strike me as joined-up government.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we still have some way to go with this Bill but the principle behind it is straightforward; namely, that the DVLA is a trading fund. It is a government agency, but it is obliged to meet its costs. The nature of the driving licence has finally to be identified. We are still subject to probing and challenging amendments from the other side, as the noble Earl may have noticed, so I cannot be categoric about costs. However, I have indicated that there are costs. Photographic renewal will cost the DVLA an additional £60 million per annum and it does not have a budget from which it can produce a subsidy for that. There are costs but many renewals will be free. Following a fee restructuring in March last year, licence renewals for those aged 70 and over for large and passenger carrying vehicle licences and for licences with a restricted duration as a result of a medical condition are now issued free of charge and that will continue. Replacement licences for those categories will remain free. Nevertheless, noble Lords will recognise that we cannot expect a government agency, which is meant to operate on a not-for-profit basis, but which has to meet its costs, to write off such significant costs, so charges will be made. I accept that the noble Lord has identified a point on that.
	Taken in the round, we are seeking to guarantee the security of the British driving licence when we are all too well aware of the inadequacy of the present form. It is true that more recent forms of the driving licence have been a great improvement. A police officer has a real problem when he stops an individual who shows him a piece of paper without a photograph but which contains the general details that we all know appear on the driving licence. The police have real difficulties in establishing that the owner of the licence is the person driving the car at the time.
	As regards road safety measures, we cannot think of anything that is much more important than guaranteeing the security of driving licences. We need to combat fraud. This is an area where fraud clearly occurs, in Britain and through our licences being used elsewhere. I hope the noble Lord recognises—if I am not given fresh arguments today—that I have reinforced and clarified some of the arguments I made in Committee and that he has had a sufficient answer to enable him to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, we are debating Clause 29. The heading to the clause is:
	"Compulsory surrender of old-form licences".
	That is strangely inadequate. Is the Minister satisfied with the terminology "old-form licences"? When one buys a new radio it is out of date yesterday or the day one buys it. Does the phrase "old-form" adequately define the present licences or is it important to designate an exact time to which the phrase "old form" relates?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can satisfy the noble Baroness on that point. She will recognise that the modern driving licence is very different from the old one, in particular with regard to the photograph. We can define when the improvements to the driving licence occurred, and we will call in licences issued in the old form that do not match current specifications.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am sure he is aware that a modern photographic driving licence card is accompanied by a piece of paper. The owner of such a licence is supposed to keep them together and when asked to produce his licence at a police station within three days, he has to produce them both. This is total nonsense. Should not all the necessary information be on the photographic card, not partially on a separate piece of paper?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. That is what we are looking at.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he tell me why the Government have no plans to designate driving licences under the Identity Cards Bill? I would have thought that the scheme for designated documents suggests that, of all the different kinds of documents that might be designated, a driving licence would be the most useful. Why do the Government have no plans to designate it?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness may have noticed that we have a few minor problems with the Identity Card Bill and its passage through both Houses. We do not think that we ought to have a problem with the driving licence. As I have indicated, we are not proposing to designate the driving licence. We want to eliminate fraud and make the driving licence an accurate and effective document. We are setting about that within the framework of the Bill. I reiterate to the House that identity cards are outwith this argument. Just before I sit down, I can see other noble Lords rising, but there is a limit to the contributions I can make before I sit down.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I normally thank the Minister for his answer but today, as he said himself, he has not given us any information other than what we debated in Committee. I shall repeat our concerns. The Minister said that the Government "have no plans" to designate the driving licence as part of the identity card scheme and that this matter will be put to Parliament in the form of an affirmative order. We all know that that means that, although there may be some debate, the matter will sail through. We feel that there is far too close a link between the potential identity card legislation and this suggestion from the Government.
	We want to stop fraud and make certain that driving licences are used legitimately, but to replace 22 million licences would involve enormous cost. The Minister gave us no idea the cost, but he did talk about £60 million a year for a proportion of the licences, so we are talking about a tremendous cost, either to the state or to the individual. A lot of that money would be better spent on other road safety measures. We are debating a road safety Bill and if we are talking about, possibly, hundreds of millions of pounds, I am sure that many noble Lords have better ideas for saving lives and improving safety than spending this enormous amount on licences.
	I have an old paper licence. They are being phased out. As one gets one's new licence, one gets a new photographic licence. As the Minister said, fraud has been less prevalent with the new type of licence. So, under the current situation with no new legislation—no new clauses—people will have a better licence. I feel that these two clauses are a step too far. They give the Government too many powers and pose enormous potential cost on either the motorist or the state. I think that we should test the feeling of the House on the matter.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 158

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 30 [Fee for renewal of photocard licence and issue of certain alternative licences]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Leave out Clause 30.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, in view of the result of the previous testing of the opinion of the House, I hope that I will not have to test the opinion of the House on this amendment as well. I hope that the Government will accept the previous result. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 40:
	After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
	"YOUNG DRIVERS' SCHEME: PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES
	Schedule (Young drivers' scheme: passenger carrying vehicles) shall have effect."

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we talked about the young drivers' scheme on the last day in Committee. I propose that drivers who undergo a proper scheme of training will be allowed to drive vehicles once they have passed the test and before they are 21 years old. I am given to understand that the Confederation of Passenger Transport has had a meeting with Karen Buck, the Minister in another place, who has undertaken to raise these issues with the European Community because there is some argument about whether present European law allows those drivers to drive.
	If the Minister can give us an undertaking that the Minister in another place will raise that matter, and seriously means to raise it in Europe, we may allow the matter to pass. But I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I reiterate that in the passenger transport industry there is a grave shortage of drivers. Many companies are now importing drivers from places like Poland, but that is not an inexhaustible source of drivers. We need to replenish our stocks and set up a proper vocational scheme for drivers. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I have heard the Minister say, and we all agree, that there is a shortage of drivers of heavy goods vehicles and public transport. A vocational scheme such as this would be a great way to train people and bring them into the profession. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say. I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on this amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is resting rather more on the meeting which my honourable friend in the other place will have on European issues than perhaps is merited. Of course, we are concerned about aspects of the European directive and we are carrying out discussions in Europe. But his amendment seeks to achieve something to which the Government are not committed at present, nor can I give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that we will argue the case in quite the terms of the amendment.
	As I said in Committee, I share entirely the noble Lord's wish to increase the skills of our young people. Driving is an important area and the acquisition of such skills can be extremely useful. We have a shortage of skilled drivers and I am at one with the noble Lord in looking at ways, through the sector skills councils, of improving opportunities. We are involved in secondary legislation which will need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament to implement a European directive providing for the introduction of a certificate of professional competence for bus drivers and its renewal on a five-yearly basis. That will link in with European rules on minimum driving ages. The implementation of the directive will provide a suitable opportunity to introduce a coherent stakeholder-supported scheme for young PCV drivers that will enable them to work commercially while acquiring their certificate of professional competence.
	However, I should say that we are not absolutely committed to the concept outlined in the noble Lord's amendment. Our position is clear. We understand the argument regarding truck drivers and the noble Lord knows that we support schemes in that area. The problem with public service vehicles is obvious; that is, passengers are being carried. The noble Lord's amendment would open the prospect that a person who learned to drive such vehicles would be in charge of passengers at a very young age. I repeat that we are in discussions in Europe on this. My honourable friend Karen Buck in the other place is going to Europe to discuss the Council directive. We are also at one with him on the objective of improving training opportunities. But I hope he will accept that if the amendment were agreed to, we would be operating within a framework that might not suit us in relation to the European directive, which still needs a considerable amount of work. In any case, separate legislation would have to be proposed in this House to give effect to the objective of the amendment.
	This is a live issue, and a constructive one. We have much the same aim as the noble Lord, but to introduce such a provision at this point would not advance the cause. Indeed, it might set us back. On that basis—that we are in talks about the implementation of the European directive and that secondary legislation will have to be brought before this House and another place—I hope that the noble Lord recognises that we will meet his objectives in large part, but we cannot be tied to the introduction of this amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has indicated to the House that we are seeking to permit drivers to drive passengers in vehicles where at present they are not allowed to do so. In fact they are allowed to do so for distances of up to 21 kilometres. That is a very restrictive agreement, allowing drivers little scope to exercise the skills which the Government have legislated for in setting up learning and skills councils. So, to be consistent, it should be possible for the drivers concerned to gain experience by easing the restriction on distance by raising the limit to 50 kilometres. That would be much more useful to drivers seeking to develop their skills. If the Minister will say that the distance over which young drivers can drive might be increased and that this issue will form part of the discussions that the Transport Minister is having in Europe, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that would be an odd procedure, and I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance in categorical terms. The noble Lord has identified, and I agree with him entirely, that we have to thrash out this issue in the European directive. We are involved in negotiations and the Minister is on the point of going to Europe to discuss these issues. We have the same objectives as the noble Lord in regard to skills training which we aim to achieve as best we can. I merely indicate to him that there is a process through which those objectives will largely be achieved. If there are imperfections in the process when the matter comes before the other place and this House, then no doubt the noble Lord will articulate any criticism of our position at that time. However, it is not necessary to have this amendment in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that argument.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I will accept the Minister's assurance that he will do his best to ensure that this issue is included in the discussions. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 43:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"LIMOUSINES
	(1) The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 13(1) (classification of licences), omit the word "either" and before the word "or" insert "limousine licence".
	(3) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) A limousine licence authorises the use (whether on national or international operations) of—
	(a) limousines not adapted to carry more than eight passengers, or
	(b) limousines not adapted to carry more than sixteen passengers."
	(4) After section 13 insert—
	"13A DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION OF LIMOUSINES
	Subject to the provisions of this section, in this Act "limousines" means a motor vehicle which being a vehicle not adapted to carry more than sixteen passengers, is used in the course of a business for the purposes of carrying passengers with the services of a driver for hire and reward where the arrangements for the payment of fares by the passenger or passengers carried are made before the journey began."
	"13B ADAPTED LIMOUSINE
	(1) A limousine adapted to carry more than eight passengers shall not be used on a road unless an examiner appointed under section 66A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 has issued a certificate (to be referred to as a limousine certificate) that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled in respect of the vehicle.
	(2) If a vehicle is used in contravention of subsection (1) above, the operator of the vehicle shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale."
	(5) Sections 8, 10 and 11 of Part II shall apply to limousines adapted to carry more than eight passengers.
	(6) Section 12 of Part II shall apply to a limousine operators' licences.""

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear that this is a probing amendment which we certainly do not wish to press to a Division. It concerns the issue of what are known as "stretch limousines". These are the huge white vehicles that you see cruising around the streets. If you go to places such as Blackpool or Brighton, you will see even longer ones with even more people in them, who are notable for their consumption of alcohol and the few clothes they wear.
	This is an unregulated section of road traffic vehicle legislation and the object of the amendment is to ask the Minister whether it is the Government's intention to introduce regulation into this sector, particularly in regard to the number of people who can be conveyed in the vehicles and the total length of vehicle allowed. These vehicles tend to get longer and longer and to carry more and more people. There must be a limit somewhere. I beg to move.

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief intervention. I declare an interest as an adviser to the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK. This is a serious matter. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, have done the House a favour in bringing it to the attention of the Government.
	I recently attended an exhibition of buses and coaches at the National Exhibition Centre which was organised by the CPT UK. At that event I was asked to chair a number of seminars on the problems facing the industry, and the issue that recurred and recurred—it was raised by coach operators in the main—was that of stretch limousines.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is absolutely correct: these vehicles are of indeterminate length; we are not certain about the quality of their construction; and we are not satisfied about whether the skills of those who drive these vehicles are suitable for driving what is essentially a public service vehicle. There is also the serious question of the safety of passengers, particularly children. Apparently it is quite a thing to give a ride in a stretch limo as a present at a birthday party and so on. The whole question of the safety of these young passengers should exercise us.
	I wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr Alistair Darling, and got back a personal reply very quickly, assuring me that the Government would look into this important matter. I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said. I am grateful that he will not test the opinion of the House on this matter because of the assurance I have received from the Secretary of State that it is under active consideration. I hope that when the Minister replies to this brief debate, he will reinforce what we know to be the Government's position.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, there are two issues, among others, that interest me. The first is whether these vehicles are properly regulated because they often have more than eight occupants. The second is whether they have adequate insurance and, indeed, whether it is possible to get adequate insurance for that type of vehicle.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Personally, I would not be seen dead in one of these vehicles, but I am worried about their construction. Some of them may have been modified, so they will not have been built in that way by the original vehicle manufacturer, and inadequate attention may have been paid to their strength. They are rather like a very long bridge; they are terribly long, and I doubt whether the chassis is strong enough to support the load, especially if there are a lot of people inside, getting up to all sorts of mischief, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, pointed out.
	What approval requirements are applicable to such vehicles? Is it the single vehicle approval scheme or are we merely relying upon a North American-type approval? Is the approval related to the vehicle's original design or its design when it is stretched?

Lord Bridges: My Lords, the points raised by the noble Earl are very real. We should be aware, as I am sure we all are, that these vehicles are mostly out of Detroit, they are made to American standards and they are running on our roads which are generally less wide and have different conditions. But if we pass an amendment to this effect, it might be seen by some in the United States to be directed at a particular American artefact, and they might think we were doing it to annoy them, which I am sure is not the intention. Let us make it clear that such an amendment would be made on the basis of security, not for any other reason.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this issue, and I say this with my customary genuine approval. This issue did not come up in Committee and it is causing the Government concern. It is clear that we have work to do in the licensing of stretch limos.
	I recognise fully the concerns that have been outlined. We do not believe that a new category of licensing is required. What is necessary is that those who operate these vehicles know what the licensing regime is and are compliant with it. As has been said in this debate, the vehicles are meant to carry eight persons within the framework of the existing licence and it is known that more persons than that are carried in some of them.
	Virtually any motor vehicle used in Great Britain to carry passengers for hire or reward on a commercial basis needs a licence of some kind. The type of licence required depends upon the capacity of the vehicle and the type of hire or reward operation undertaken rather than the type of vehicle used. Operating without the requisite licence is a criminal offence. Hire or reward includes indirect forms of payment in cash or in kind. For vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than eight vehicles, the licence required is the public service vehicle operators' licence issued by the traffic commissioner. For vehicles which are adapted to carry eight vehicles or fewer—

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister has twice said, "For vehicles adapted to carry eight vehicles or more". He perhaps means, "Eight passengers or more".

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise; I meant "eight passengers" or more. I am grateful to the noble Countess for clarifying that. I was seeking to identify that if the vehicle carries more than eight passengers, a public service vehicle licence is required. If the vehicle is to carry eight passengers or fewer, the private hire vehicle licence is the appropriate one. That is the one that applies to taxis and other private hire vehicles that can take only pre-booked hirings. Those licences are administered by the relevant local authority, which has discretion on which vehicles they will licence. It is therefore at present a matter for local decision. I think that the noble Lord is indicating that these local licensing authorities have some difficulty with regard to stretch limousines, which is why we need to address the issue.
	A vehicle can also carry these numbers of passengers if they are separate fares and are being carried,
	"in the course of a business . . . of carrying passengers".
	In that case, however, a public service vehicle operator's licence would be issued by the traffic commissioner. So we are clear on the two categories of licence that are issued.
	As noble Lords will recognise, some stretch limousines arguably are constructed to carry more than eight passengers. However, because of the nature of their current construction, they are allowed to be registered for use on UK roads only if they carry no more than eight passengers. That is the restriction. To carry more than eight, they would need to comply with Schedule 6, on minibuses, of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Vehicles of the stretched limousine type currently do not comply. In particular, they do not comply with the minibus requirement because minibuses have emergency exits. One of the obvious problems that we have with stretch limousines is that they do not have any form of emergency exit.
	Schedule 6 could not be modified unilaterally so as to authorise non-conforming stretch limousines as a separate class without the absence of objections from right across the European Community. We think that that would be unlikely given the arrival shortly of a new European-type approval regime for large passenger vehicles which does not specifically provide for stretch limousines to the numbers that would be required. If constructed to meet the required standards, there is absolutely nothing to stop a limousine from operating as a public service vehicle. But it would need to meet the required standards. Some manufacturers are looking at how they can adapt their stretch limousines to meet the public service vehicle requirements, which would need to include some element of emergency exit.
	Because of the construction requirements I have just outlined, limousines on our roads today can in practice operate only as a vehicle constructed or adapted to carry eight passengers or fewer. They are not constructed to carry more. As I have already explained, vehicles adapted to carry eight passengers or fewer which are used for carrying passengers for hire or reward can be licensed by either the local authority or the traffic commissioner, depending on the type of operation undertaken. The type of operation envisaged by the noble Lords in the amendment—that is, a vehicle provided with a driver and arrangements for payment of fares made before the journey—is already provided for under the private hire vehicle licensing system. Creating two types of licence for the same type of operation would be far from ideal and create significant confusion and difficulties for both the licensing and the enforcement authorities. So we do not want two types of licence. We want to get the stretch limousines within the existing framework of licensing arrangements.
	We recognise that proper enforcement is an important issue on a number of safety grounds, not just in relation to the type of vehicle but also in terms of the type of driver. After all, the driver is responsible for a significant number of people in his charge.
	I should just say that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency takes to court those operators found to be carrying nine or more passengers and thus operating illegally, and those cases are resulting in successful prosecutions. So we are concerned enough about the situation to seek to monitor the successful prosecution when these vehicles are being used illegally.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister explain how you will be able to tell whether there are nine or more people in the car? I see those vehicles all the time, and they have black windows. Will the police have the right to pull the vehicle up?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is certainly an interesting point, although they are not the only vehicles on the road with opaque windows. There is no opacity with regard to the driver's window, for a start—so the police can make a challenge. It is also the case that if a police officer suspects that something illegal is being done, he is perfectly entitled to make the necessary checks. It would not take him long to open a door to discover how many passengers there were inside.
	So I do not believe that enforcement is a difficulty. What is at stake here—and what the noble Lord is trying to resolve with his amendment—is how the vehicles are rendered safe and proper and meet our licensing requirement, which is to guarantee safety on the road. We believe that the current legislation fully provides for any form of operation envisaged. We are aware of concerns in this area and officials are actively looking at what can be done to clarify the position for all parties. We recognise that we will need to get the licensing regime absolutely clear so that the licensing authorities know what kind of vehicles they are dealing with and deal with them properly. But we are absolutely certain that, when vehicles are operating illegally, prosecutions are occurring, because we are concerned about that.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that fairly lengthy explanation of the current situation and his assurances that officials are aware of the problems. We particularly draw his attention to vehicles carrying more than eight passengers, because some of the longer vehicles that are supposed to carry 16 are carrying considerably more. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 39 [Disclosure to foreign authorities of licensing and registration information]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 50, line 1, leave out from "territory" to end of line 4 and insert "that has ratified the Treaty on European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System (EUCARIS)"

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, as noble Lords will recall from Committee, this clause is designed to enable the DVLA and its Northern Irish counterpart to disclose certain licensing and registration information to foreign authorities, ostensibly for the purposes of ratifying the EUCARIS treaty. That is a worthy end to which we have no objection—a fact reflected in the design of these amendments to enable ratification of the EUCARIS treaty.
	I am sure that we all agree that we want to do our utmost to support genuine measures to prevent and punish vehicle crime. However, that desire is tempered by our paramount concern for the protection of the British driver against misuse of valuable personal information by a foreign body. There were several reports last weekend, which noble Lords may have seen, about the potential selling of information about individuals by the DVLA, not necessarily to other countries but to other consortiums—perhaps crime consortiums, and so on. That is a worrying issue on which the Minister may like to comment.
	These amendments are designed to restrict the disclosure of information exclusively within the nexus of the EUCARIS treaty. When I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, in Committee about the necessity of making the power so extensive as to include any country or territory outside the United Kingdom—be it north Vietnam, or anywhere else—she replied that the Government,
	"do not want to preclude the ability to exchange outside the EU in the future".—[Official Report, 26/10/05; cols. 1201-2.]
	However, in citing the examples of Japan and the USA, she mentioned that the USA has already shown some interest in EUCARIS. Am I correct in taking her reference to mean that the extension of the disclosure of licensing and registration information can be facilitated with non-European Union countries through the mechanism of the existing EUCARIS treaty? If that is the case, and in the light of the fact that the Minister has already assured the House that EUCARIS enshrines the principles of the Data Protection Act, it would seem eminently sensible to progress any extension of disclosure to other nations in this way, thereby utilising the benefits already inherent in the existence of the EUCARIS treaty, rather than renegotiating incessantly on a bilateral basis each time.
	In Committee I drew attention to the fact that very few countries have actually signed the treaty. In her answer, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, claimed at col. 1202 that
	"the EU Commission is looking at using the EUCARIS system as the technical solution for exchanging information between all EU countries".
	I take this as further evidence of the versatility and broad possibilities of this treaty, qualities that seem to make it a most suitable mechanism and vehicle for the purposes of exchanging licensing and registration information with foreign authorities, and obviating the need for alarmingly loose provision. The original wording,
	"to make available to any country or territory outside of the United Kingdom",
	is totally less than satisfactory.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments, and in particular any information he may share about the development of the EUCARIS treaty. I only hope he can provide these answers to your Lordships' House, since the last letter I was promised seemed to get lost in the post. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I certainly apologise for the fact that the noble Lord did not receive the letter that was directed to him. I hope that I can make good that deficiency in this contribution.
	The issue of stolen vehicles is a significant problem, not just in Europe but worldwide. We have problems with stolen Japanese vehicles, as does Australia. We all know that there is a fairly flourishing illegal trade in the marketing of stolen vehicles. If a householder has lost a rather valuable car and they ask what chance they have of getting it back, the police officer is likely to make the depressing statement, "If it is this side of the English Channel I would be somewhat surprised—and if it is ever recovered, it might be a good deal further away than that". It is a problem, and I think noble Lords will recognise this issue.
	The EUCARIS concept is only one strand in our general strategy to try and tackle the issue of vehicle crime. The problem with the amendment is that it would restrict the information to those countries that have ratified EUCARIS, of which there are not very many. It is not Europe-wide; not even all the European states have signed up to it. It costs £35,000 a year to join, but for some countries that may be a sum of money that they could spend more easily elsewhere, because they have very few inquiries about the issue and it is of limited concern. Not everyone in the smaller states is seized of the necessity for action in this area. Some countries have such small volumes of inquiries that they wonder what all the fuss is about, whereas, as we know, it can be a significant problem for other countries.
	I want to put a more positive gloss on the rather dismal report I am giving at this stage, however. Other countries can join EUCARIS that are not part of the European community. It is possible for them to join if they so wish. We are certainly in favour of encouraging that, but we do not want a restriction on our ability to provide information to other countries outside the framework, which the amendment would require. As I have indicated, this is a worldwide problem.
	To restrict the exchange of information to those countries that ratify the EUCARIS treaty would undermine the effectiveness of the system by restricting the number of participants—and that number is not large enough at present—and would require an amendment to legislation each time the DVLA, or the authority in Northern Ireland, needed to disclose information to any other country.
	I hope noble Lords will recognise that, given the safeguards we have with regard to the transfer of information under the Data Protection Act, this information would be used purely in relation to stolen vehicles. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances on that front. We see no reason why we should be restrictive about this when our problem at the present time is that there are not enough participant countries within the framework to enable us to deal effectively with this form of criminality.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree that we have to provide and exchange information to prevent crime. I am slightly concerned about the possibility of information being sold to countries to which we would not want it to be sold. I trust that the DVLA will take that into account. I am concerned about recent press reports but I shall not discuss those today. We might address that matter on another occasion. I shall reflect on what has been said and on whether we need to return to this whole area of information at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 46:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
	"MOTORCYCLES IN BUS LANES
	All bus lanes when buses are moving in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent vehicle lane shall be open to use by motorcycles."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I return to the discussion that we had in Committee on the possibility of motorcycles using bus lanes. Primarily that would deliver important improvements in road safety, particularly for motorcyclists themselves. Moreover, increasing the safety of motorcycling would perhaps encourage more people to take up this environmentally friendly alternative to the car, which in turn would make significant contributions to the alleviation of local traffic problems.
	I was grateful to the Minister for her responses in Committee and I hope that she will be kind enough to clarify a number of issues for me. First, as the noble Baroness stated in Committee, at present only a minority of local authorities have taken the innovative step of allowing motorcyclists to use bus lanes. Consequently I should like to probe further on the provision to which the Minister referred that enables local authorities to exercise the discretionary powers which would allow motorcycles to use bus lanes.
	Secondly, the Minister reminded noble Lords that the Secretary of State has powers to permit motorcyclists the use of bus lanes in respect of trunk roads and motorways. The example of the M4 bus lane was given, although it seems to be available for all kinds of things. Is the Minister aware of any plans to introduce these measures elsewhere? In Committee the Minister assured noble Lords that, upon the result of the London trials, the Government would review,
	"the guidance, which presently recommends that motorcyclists are not normally allowed to use bus lanes".—[Official Report, 26/10/05; col. 1224.]
	Will the Minister inform us when these experimental trials will finish and whether the results will be made publicly available?
	Furthermore, will the noble Baroness reassure the House that there will be no repeat of the analytical mistakes made in the interpretation of data in the interim reports on the three London studies? As noble Lords will recall, failure to give proper consideration to the impact of external factors; namely, the extensive roadworks on the A13 portion of the trial, led to somewhat skewed results and misinterpretation of the scheme's road safety benefits. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to those points and in particular give us some encouragement that what we see as a useful road safety initiative might gain support from the Government. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out her case so clearly once again. I am afraid that I shall disappoint her in that we probably have not moved on the matter as far as she would like. However, there has been some movement.
	As noble Lords will know, the purpose of designating bus lanes is to give priority to buses over other classes of traffic. The more other motorised vehicles are allowed to use those lanes as a statutory entitlement, the more their purpose becomes devalued. I am sympathetic to the principle of improving facilities for motorcyclists, including their use of bus lanes where appropriate. Local authorities have powers to allow other vehicles to use bus lanes if they consider that it would be desirable, and probably a minority of local authorities are pursuing that practice. We do not have the exact figures of the number of local authorities that allow motorcyclists to use bus lanes, but as the noble Baroness has said, the provision is there for local authorities to take up.
	The Secretary of State has similar powers in respect of bus lanes on trunk roads and motorways. I am not aware of any plans on the part of the Secretary of State to allow—beyond the M4 bus lane—any further use by motorcyclists of bus lanes on trunk roads. I will make sure that if there are any plans the noble Baroness will know of them by Third Reading. We believe, however, that it should be left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether they should allow any other vehicles, including motorcycles, to use any of their bus lanes, taking local circumstances into consideration. We should not be second-guessing local circumstances of which only local authorities have experience.
	Some local authorities have allowed motorcyclists to use bus lanes, for example Bristol and Birmingham, and the Secretary of State has permitted motorcycles and licensed taxis to use the M4 bus lane. There remain concerns for the safety of other road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians. Motorcycles can be fast-moving small objects, and when travelling in bus lanes they are in a part of the road where some people do not expect them to be. Noble Lords will know that our guidance to local authorities currently recommends against generally allowing motorcyclists to use bus lanes, but we are reviewing the guidance taking account of the trials in London of allowing motorcycles into bus lanes. I hope that the noble Baroness will see some progression.
	The main point about the amendment, however, is that while the department can provide guidance—notwithstanding that the guidance may change to become more relaxed and more neutral—the use of bus lanes by other vehicles is something that local authorities should decide depending on the circumstances of each case. It should not be written into primary legislation. I hope in view of this explanation that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is it not extremely confusing for motorists, particularly motorcyclists in this case, that the law will not be consistent throughout the United Kingdom?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the importance of giving discretion to local authorities, but her noble friend Lord Davies told the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that local authorities should not have discretion about 30 mph repeater speed limits signs.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, the description of "motorcycle" can include motorcycles that have three wheels. I wonder whether clarification is needed in this respect. Should not the word be "motorbicycles"?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are not accepting the amendment; we are resisting it, and therefore it is somewhat academic to look at the word "cycle" as opposed to the word "bicycle". But I understand the point that my noble friend makes. Certainly it is important to get the definition of a motorcycle absolutely right in any amendment, together with the fact that the motorcycle is a two-wheeled powered vehicle, although some can be customised to have three wheels. I thank my noble friend for that information.
	With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in this case local authorities' experience of their local circumstances is most important. People will be expecting a bus to be in a bus lane. A local authority knows about speeds and the timing of congestion and so on in certain areas. While it is not always so, I believe that in this case local authorities should be allowed to use their discretion in coming to a decision with that local knowledge.
	I can see the noble Lord's point about there being confusion without a systematic set of standards across the country. However, if local authorities believe that their local circumstances make it appropriate for motorcycles to be in bus lanes, it will be safe for people if there is clear signage. So I think that clear signage is the answer to the noble Lord's concern.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I am slightly disappointed because I thought that in Committee we were probably opening a little door to what seems to be a perfectly sensible proposal for road safety. I understand that local authorities may have their own views on this but, equally, I understand that there is consistency in most road usage. However, there is no consistency about buses using bus lanes. While it is not a matter for this amendment, noble Lords will be aware of many occasions when buses have been not in the bus lane, which takes at least half the width of the road, but in the motorists' part of the road. So some even-handedness is required.
	Again, I thank the Minister for her reply, although I am not particularly happy about it. As I said, I think that there is room here for a road safety initiative but, having heard what she said, for today's purposes I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 40 [Trunk road picnic areas]:

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 46A:
	Page 50, line 20, at end insert—
	"(aa) in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) insert—
	"(e) security, cleaning and maintenance facilities","

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we return to the issue of trunk road picnic areas. The Government have a good idea here. They tell us that tiredness kills and they want people to pull off special roads and trunk roads and take a break. But their thinking rather comes to an end there. They say, "Here is a space", but then the issue of who is going to look after that space, keep it clean, provide lavatory facilities, refreshments—if there are to be any—and security have all been left rather in the air. There is then the prospect that local authorities will be left with a not inconsiderable bill for looking after these places, which could become unsanitary, crime-ridden, fly-tipping sites if we are not careful.
	An opportunity arises in that, shortly, the Highways Agency is due to consult on the regulations that govern motorway service areas. That would provide an excellent opportunity for the provision of these additional facilities to be reviewed alongside the present outdated framework for motorway service areas. The Highways Agency could carry out a review of existing sites—motorway service areas—and new sites—the picnic areas—and, I hope, come up with a system that provides proper management at both kinds of site. Contractors could be engaged under the competitive tendering process, which is now used for motorway sites, to encompass new picnic areas so that they can be managed properly and offer people somewhere pleasant, comfortable and attractive to stop rather than somewhere that is very unpleasant and that few people would use. We hope that the Minister will say, in response to the amendments moved by me, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that there is more work to do on this. Clause 40 is not the end of the story but almost the beginning. I would like to hear whether the Minister intends to put some flesh on the bones. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, my amendment—Amendment No. 47—is in this group. It more or less replicates what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, proposes but is more concerned with the security of such areas. In Committee we said that, on the face of it, this appears to be a very good idea. However, when one considers the problems associated with having drop-off areas on motorways, more attention is required than has so far been given to the subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, who will look after the sites and who will be responsible for them? If the Highways Agency can be pinned with the responsibility, then it must be pinned with it in a way in which it funds the careful maintenance and security of such areas. One can create an area like this wherever one likes on a trunk road, but if it is not secure, clean and there are no toilet facilities, no one will use it legitimately. We are all concerned that the sites will end up being used for illegitimate uses which will stop normal road users using them.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information on the questions that we have asked on both the previous occasion and now. How will the sites be managed? Who will manage them? What security will there be? Will there be management personnel on the sites to ensure that they are properly looked after or will that be done through a remote CCTV system which might or might not contain a film? Will they be open day and night or will someone see that they are secured at night? It is extremely important that we have satisfactory answers to these matters so that we feel able to approve this new clause with this new proposal.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, my amendment is Amendment No. 49. I remind the House of my interest as president of the HTA and patron of the Road Rescue Recovery Association. I am also close to other trade associations. My amendment covers slightly wider issues. At Second Reading, I described the poor state of facilities, particularly for HGV drivers at overnight spots and especially for female drivers. Can the Minister point to any other group of industrial workers that is treated so badly, especially in terms of WC facilities in the morning? It is not surprising that there are so few lady truck drivers. Does the Minister agree that grossly inadequate facilities are resulting in problems in recruiting HGV drivers in general, and females in particular? What will he do about it? Can he offer the industry anything better than a burger bar with inadequate hygiene facilities or a large bush for early morning nature calls? Is that the best we can offer a key sector of industrial workers who have onerous responsibilities, which we discussed earlier on Report?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As has been recognised, the picnic areas provided for by the Bill are additional facilities and will be recognised as an advance. I take the anxieties of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on board. We need to improve facilities for truck drivers and others. That is part of the concept of the facilities, but he will recognise that our major concern is road safety. Drivers should have a decent place with limited facilities in which to pull off the road in safety and security while taking a necessary rest. These are picnic sites, not highway services. They are not a replica of facilities on the motorways but are very limited.
	Security is an important consideration and I recognise the point the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, makes in that respect, but we believe that it can be covered by closed-circuit television and by people from the Highways Agency dropping in on sites as a regular part of their duties. The concept of these picnic areas is an advance on what we have at present and meets some of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made.
	If these are probing amendments, I hope that I am being sufficiently probed that I give answers that reassure noble Lords. The problem with the amendments is that we do not think that the Secretary of State needs additional facilities. What is being sought here is picnic areas that will provide limited opportunities for rest. They will be an improvement on the very limited facilities that we have at the present time, to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, drew attention. We do not see these picnic areas having substantial facilities. They may have a snack bar provided by a private operator, the sort of thing that operates on truck stops up and down the country, but we are not seeking to create anything that looks remotely like a motorway service area. They will be a safe place for rest and recuperation and a break from driving a vehicle. Therefore, on security considerations, regular patrols by the Highways Agency will make sure that road traffic is moving smoothly. I recognise the anxiety about fly-tipping and the illicit transfer of goods and drugs, but we think that the closed circuit television that we will put on sites where we have anxieties will guard against them.
	On that basis I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have thought through this issue of picnic areas. I do not think that a single voice has dissented from the concept. I hope that noble Lords will feel, therefore, that we have thought through the policy and that the amendment can safely be withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask two questions, which I do not think have been raised. Who is going to provide these sites? No money, or extremely limited money, will be made out of them. So, they will not be a money-spinner for a private company buying the land and setting up a picnic area. Is the expectation that this will be done by the Highways Agency on land which is publicly owned, or will these sites have to be purchased, and therefore the money will not necessarily come back, or will they be purchased by local authorities, which are not going to make any money out of them either? I know that there is allowance for such sites on other roads and that this is just an extension of that. Perhaps the Minister would tell me what happens elsewhere as to who, if anybody, will put up the money to run these sites without any return?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—

Baroness Hanham: Stands up!

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall reply to the noble Baroness and then the noble Earl can ask me his question before I sit down again. The point really is whether we can envisage any profit-making aspect to this. We can see perhaps the provision of a limited snack bar, which may be licensed out on that basis. That happens in many of our existing lay-bys where an enterprising individual, who often indicates his presence by the waving of an extremely patriotic flag, provides this facility. We do not anticipate anything more grandiose than that. But, regarding supervision of the site, we believe that the Secretary of State has sufficient powers. We recognise the anxieties that have been expressed, but many of these lay-bys with small facilities exist. We will improve on that. We will have extra dimensions of security, cleanliness and insurance that they are used for proper purposes. In addition, they may have a small snack bar.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am grateful for the tone of his response to my question. Does he think that it is reasonable for an industrial worker to expect to have access to a WC immediately on waking up from his overnight sleep?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says. Vehicles which are parked overnight for a considerable period of time need to be on a reasonable site. I recognise that. We would expect that site, in the best of all circumstances, to have an adequate facility, as he indicated. We have a consultation to carry out on how these sites will be operated, and so on. The noble Earl has made his point that if a site is large enough to encourage a considerable number of vehicles for a considerable period of time we would expect facilities to be present for the drivers' natural needs.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down once more, is he aware that under legislation, which might go back 200 or 300 years, drivers of certain types of vehicles—and I do not know whether it is extended to HGVs—are allowed to urinate against the left rear wheel of their vehicles, providing their right or left hand is touching that vehicle?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am ever grateful for the insights into British law that the noble Viscount presents. There was I thinking that that was only a part of French law!

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I must say that I found the Minister's answers to be among the most unsatisfactory that we have received today. The Government are embarking on a process of providing more facilities—bearing in mind, of course, that there is now a huge amount more traffic—but they are almost blundering into it without thinking about what people will need when they arrive.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, makes a very good point about facilities for HGV drivers. I declare my interest as an Oxfordshire county councillor. I assure the Minister that many of the lay-bys that he mentioned are insanitary, awful places. We have had to close some because they were so bad. But that does not get round the problem of where else lorry drivers go.
	I shall read what the Minister said, but I let him know that I found his answer very poor and we shall need to return to the subject when the Bill returns for Third Reading, because that answer did not go far and did not specifically address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about who will pay, because payment there will certainly be if the facilities are to be anything like they need to be. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: moved Amendment No. 48:
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR HIGHWAYS: DUTY TO PROTECT CHARACTER OF COUNTRYSIDE
	After section 115 of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66) insert—
	"115L SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR HIGHWAYS: DUTY TO PROTECT CHARACTER OF COUNTRYSIDE
	In carrying out their duties under Part VII of this Act (provision of special facilities for highways), when providing special facilities intended to improve road safety, highways authorities shall have regard to the desirability of protecting the character of the countryside.""

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the amendment would place a new duty on highway authorities to consider the effect of their policies and activities on the character of the countryside. It aims to improve the design of new interventions by those authorities in rural areas and to avoid clutter.
	Traffic levels have traditionally risen faster in rural areas than in our already congested towns and cities and are forecast to grow more. Accompanying that growth in traffic has been an increase in the number of fatalities on rural roads. Indeed, they have increased consecutively for the past four years. So authorities have an important role to play in matching the volume and speed of traffic. However, frequently, that involves the installation of new warning signs, road markings and other traffic-calming measures. Those can have the effect of urbanising the countryside. As few authorities undertake audits to consider whether every warning sign or other piece of street furniture is still necessary, the result is an incremental increase in clutter. That is steadily eroding the character of the countryside. That is especially true in the case of temporary road signs relating to road works, which should come down but are left up for months after the roadworks have finished.
	Road safety and protection of the countryside are not opposite ends of the same spectrum. In many instances, rural communities are effectively presented with a choice between unsafe villages or the disfigurement of their village by treatment measures that pay little regard to the surrounding character of the countryside. To be concerned about the visual impact of road safety and other measures is not to argue that road safety measures are not vital for many rural communities. The key is to ensure that they are implemented in ways that are sympathetic to the surrounding countryside.
	There are examples of highway authorities who have tried to adopt a much more enlightened approach. I know of five county councils—Norfolk, Cumbria, Devon, Derbyshire and Wiltshire—all of whom have adopted sympathetic measures aimed at reducing the clutter in the countryside. None of those has come at the expense of road safety. If you double the number of road signs, you do not double the road safety that they create. Unfortunately, the initiatives undertaken by the five authorities that I mentioned are few in number and frequently restricted to protected areas, such as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty.
	The rural White Paper 2000 stated:
	"we want local authorities to seek ways to enrich the countryside as a whole, not just in the protected areas, and maintain its distinctive local features".
	It is appropriate, therefore, to place a national duty on local authorities to consider much more carefully the effect of their signing policy on the countryside. I would like local authorities and highway authorities themselves to consider the best way of doing it and of making it relevant to their own area. The amendment is not prescriptive of the method of implementation, although I hope very much that the Government would give some guidance and some support for it. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for setting out his amendment in that excellent way. He makes the persuasive case that road safety measures are extremely important but must be implemented in a way that is sympathetic to the countryside environment. I take note of his campaign against clutter. However, I will disappoint him by resisting his call for a national duty, as he describes it.
	The amendment is unnecessary as there are already proper statutory protection and planning policies in place for all the countryside of good character. For example, public bodies are already under a duty to have regard to the Habitats Directive, which provides a legal framework for the protection of special areas of conservation and certain species. There are also general duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to take reasonable steps on the conservation of flora and fauna in sites of special scientific interest.
	The White Paper, The Future of Transport, which we published in July 2004, states at page 16 that,
	"there will continue to be a strong presumption against schemes that would significantly affect environmentally sensitive sites or important species habitats or landscapes; by keeping the environmental impacts of new and existing transport infrastructure to a minimum, ensuring that mitigation measures are implemented to a high standard".
	The White Paper expresses strongly the opinion that we should ensure that safety measures do not significantly affect environmentally sensitive sites.
	There is also a requirement for certain types of project to be subject to environmental impact assessment before development consent is granted. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Lord feels that largely we are meeting his objectives, without going as far as his amendment wishes. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that thoughtful and very coherent response. I would have preferred to move the amendment in Committee but that stage carried on for so many days that I was unable to attend the final sitting. I agree that it would have been more appropriate for it to be moved as a probing amendment in Committee rather than at this late stage. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend has said, particularly the references to the various directives and other powers already in place. It seemed pretty convincing to me. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 50:
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTING TRAFFIC OVER LEVEL CROSSINGS
	The Secretary of State shall make provision by a development order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) to secure that, in any case where a proposed development is likely to result in a material increase in the volume, or a material change in the character, of traffic, or may require changes to the level crossing's protective arrangements, using a highway which is part of a highway network which includes a level crossing over a railway situated within 15 miles of the proposed development, the local planning authority shall be required to consult the Secretary of State, the rail safety authority and operator of the network which includes or consists of the railway in question before granting planning permission for the development."

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the amendments in this group are those affecting the railway. The amendments address two problems, the first of which is level crossings. Level crossing are now the most likely cause of a serious railway accident, much money having been spent on such measures as removing broken rails, TPWS to prevent trains colliding, and the elimination of slam-doors.
	Level crossings in this country are mostly protected by barriers with or without lights. We have seen films taken in the past few weeks which show alarming pictures of vehicles driving around level crossings, pushing barriers up and being missed by trains by inches and micro-seconds. The first point of the amendments is that Network Rail shall be a statutory consultee when developments affecting traffic over a level crossing are likely to take place.
	Amendment No. 51 provides for increased penalties if people deliberately weave around or abuse level crossings. Amendment No. 52 applies to careless or inconsiderate driving, whether it is over a level crossing or on a bridge over a road. We give powers to traffic authorities to provide protective equipment at level crossings and in advance of bridges. There are powers to "stop up" level crossings where safety would be enhanced by so doing. We have tried to say, "Yes, a right of way exists over that crossing. But if a bridge is provided nearby, the sacrificing of the right to go over that level crossing should be weighed against the possibility that a train may be derailed at the level crossing, which may involve great loss of life".
	I am well aware that when the Minister in another place spoke to us he said that in his opinion some of these amendments are not necessary. It is a very late stage to say that. I ask noble Lords to agree these amendments knowing that the Government have plenty of opportunity in another place to substitute better amendments which might be devised in the mean time. I do not say that these are the best possible amendments to deal with the problems of abuse of level crossings and collisions with railway bridges—that is, bridge bashing. We know that bridge bashing costs lots of minutes in delay. We know that it has the potential to cause an extremely serious accident. We know that there are accidents at level crossings every day. We are just waiting for the really bad one to hit the headlines, after which newspapers will be screaming as to why something had not been done. That is the sort of scenario I want to avoid. Let us get ahead of the game and not say the day after an accident, "Of course, expenditure on saving a life shall have no limit". That is rather a silly phrase because it obviously does.
	I urge the Minister to accept the amendments as the best that we can do to address a very serious problem. If he persists in saying that for some reason or another they are not the best amendments, he should take them away. The Bill will go to another place. There will be plenty of opportunity for them to be considered properly. It was suggested that these issues were suddenly sprung on the Government and we were asked why we did not go to Ministers earlier. For example, the accident at Upton Nervet level crossing in Berkshire was well known to everyone. For days, there were headlines in the newspapers.
	I urge the Government to take the proposals away and think about them. I do not expect them to come back to us at Third Reading; time is far too short. But while the Bill progresses through both Houses there will be an opportunity to do a workmanlike job and bring forward modern legislation to protect bridges over railways and level crossings that will save lives—which is what this Bill is about—and giving highway authorities a responsibility to consider the welfare of passengers on the railway. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my name is added to the amendment. I support it, as I have at previous stages. I am grateful to my noble friend for arranging a meeting last night with Stephen Ladyman, the Minister responsible for this legislation in the other place. But as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said, we need to put this issue on the record. I understand that representatives from Network Rail met with the Secretary of State well before the election. I also understand that similar amendments were tabled to the first road safety Bill introduced in another place before the election, so the proposals have been around for a long time.
	The other development since we considered this Bill in Committee is that Network Rail has indicated that it is happy to share with local authorities the costs of any works proposed to protect against bridge bashing and to improve safety at level crossings. I see no reason why Network Rail should pay for everything. In his response my noble friend on the Front Bench may argue that costs will be put on local authorities, but I would argue that the Government are in effect responsible both for the majority of local government finance and that of the railways. I see it as a question of balancing between the pots. Moreover, most accidents of this kind are caused by the road sector rather than the railway sector, and here I declare an interest as chairman of the Railfreight Group. It is only equitable that the costs should at least be shared; indeed, I might go further because Network Rail has been very generous.
	I want to mention one issue in relation to Amendment No. 54, which I am not sure was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in speaking to the group. Amendment No. 54 concerns the:
	"Power to impose requirements on traffic authorities as regards to protective equipment at level crossings".
	My noble friend argued in Committee that the Level Crossings Act 1983 permits obligations to be put on highways or traffic authorities, but Network Rail is contesting that. The purpose of this amendment, therefore, is to require local authorities, rather than simply allow them, to have regard to the need to reduce the risk of bridge bashing when exercising their functions. That is an important point.
	I have a copy of a letter from the Health and Safety Executive to Network Rail dated 23 June which expresses support for these amendments in principle:
	"We continue to support fully the objectives of Network Rail's amendments to the Road Safety Bill in respect of level crossings and bridge bashes".
	Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, observed, let us not forget that these amendments will save lives. Over the past 12 months there have been about 40 deaths, including suicides, at level crossings. Network Rail estimates that at least half of those lives could have been saved. Some 40 per cent of all train accident risks are caused by level crossings, and last year saw some 1,800 reported acts of misuse at level crossings. If those statistics do not make us sit up and think, the short video referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, which many noble Lords watched last week, rather puts the cap on the argument. I am keen on these amendments and I fully support them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some words of assurance that he too welcomes them.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Berkeley. We on these Benches support the amendments. I, too, believe that this part of the Bill can save lives. I know that there are some problems—as most noble Lords will know, I also am involved in a local authority—but I am sure that a partnership between the railways and local authorities can overcome them.
	I am disappointed that, after various meetings and various discussions, the Government have not been able to move further than they have in accepting the spirit of the amendments. The wording of the amendments might not be perfect but the initiatives behind them should be supported. I support what noble Lords have already said.

Viscount Tenby: I, too, support this group of amendments and again express my apologies for not having done so during the Committee stage when I was unavoidably detained from attending. I can assure the Minister that my not being able to be there in no way is a diminution of my enthusiasm for not only the amendments but for what is behind them. That is the important thing. I also declare again an interest as a magistrate.
	Far more authoritative voices than mine have already said everything there is to be said about this issue and there is no point in repeating the arguments at the Report stage. However, as regards level crossings, I was one of the noble Lords who looked at the video provided by Network Rail and I saw evidence of the staggering recklessness displayed by a lunatic fringe of drivers, any of whom could have caused unimaginable and catastrophic casualties at the scene of such an incident. I hope that when push comes to shove on these amendments, noble Lords will give them a really good shove.
	I also warmly support the amendments relating to bridge strikes. No one has much referred to them but there have been more than 2,000 in the past year. It is probably true that many noble Lords have their favourite sites for observing this strange ritual of the British transport system, where the drivers of large lorries and buses follow a route in hope rather than expectation. For example, not a million miles from where I live there is a railway bridge, in the aptly-named village of Wrecclesham, which has been struck on a number of occasions in recent years by a variety of vehicles despite the height being clearly displayed. Mercifully, so far as I am aware, there have been no serious injuries. But if we continue to let drivers and, ultimately, transport managers get away with dangerous disregard for road conditions, once again the consequences will be very grave indeed. I commend all these amendments to the House.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, in a previous disposition in the other place, I had to witness the results of several very serious level crossing incidents in my then constituency in Cornwall on the branch line between Parr and Newquay.
	I wish to refer swiftly to the issue of costs. I hope the Minister will take account of the fact that every incident is very costly, not only in lives—as it has been on occasion in Cornwall—but costly in accidents which then cause major injury, in disruption to the rail service, which can last for several days, even for weeks and months, and in disruption on the roads. I hope that in his reply the Minister will not look simply at the costs of prevention and the costs implied by the amendment, but will also be looking at the costs of not passing the amendment.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I, too, apologise for not being able to be in attendance at the Committee stage. I add my support to the spirit behind the amendments. I remind the House that we are not only talking about lives lost in terms of deaths and lives lost in terms of major injury, but also about lives damaged by minor injury. Such an injury—for example, facial scarring—may appear minor but the person has to live with it forever. This also has a cost, both for our health services and within society. All of these factors need to be counted in.

Lord Snape: My Lords, I do not think I have an interest to declare in this matter but I shall declare one anyway as an employee of the National Express Group. Like previous speakers I do not wish to repeat anything I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, but I do wish to register, first, my support for the amendments and, secondly, my disappointment at the apparent reluctance of the Government to see the sensible reasons for these amendments.
	The history of the railways over the past 150 or 160 years shows that we have succeeded in reducing the risks of accidents enormously. The potential for errors for signalmen has been drastically reduced in recent years, for example. Although it is still possible for drivers to misread signals and cause accidents, modernisation, electrification and the provision of modern signalling has, if not eradicated, enormously reduced accidents caused by drivers' errors. But there is one area in which we have not succeeded in reducing the number of accidents. Indeed, in recent years, the number of accidents at level crossings has actually increased. That is partly as a result of the vast increase in road traffic and partly of the more cavalier attitude of many of our driving fraternity.
	If we are to tackle the problem of level crossing accidents, two things ought to be done. First, in accordance with Amendment No. 50, highway authorities ought to accept far more responsibility for the protection of level crossings than they do at present. I do not underestimate the power of the driving lobby in this country. Some daily newspapers appear to be obsessed by an organisation called the Association of British Drivers. I have never heard of these people as individuals, but collectively they appear to have enormous influence on transport policy in the United Kingdom. The Daily Mail finds it impossible to talk about any aspect of our transport policy without quoting some representative of, as I refer to them, the petrol-head fraternity.
	The fact is that for many years, motorists have been getting away with the sort of behaviour at level crossings that causes accidents. There was one particular accident recently which it would be improper of me to go into detail about, but from what I have read and from what I have heard from my contacts in the railway industry, it would appear that the driver of the road vehicle involved in that accident, who was tragically killed as a result, had zigzagged round a half-barrier level crossing. That sort of behaviour is by no means unusual—it happens, I would have thought, fairly regularly in various parts of the country. It is long past the time that highway authorities accepted far greater responsibility for level crossing safety and protection.
	Secondly, I spoke at an earlier stage of the Bill about bridge bashing. Trains these days, particularly the ones that I and some of my noble friends use most often on the West Coast Main Line, are faster and lighter than the trains that previously ran. They are multiple unit trains, to all intents and purposes, although I dare say the purists would not like them to be so called. If we have a serious bridge bashing incident on the West Coast Main Line, the potential for disaster, because of these faster and lighter trains is, in my view and that of people far more expert than I, greatly increased. The department ought to look far more seriously at the penalties for the sort of conduct that we see all too often.
	Bridge bashing in a particular area has been referred to; in an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings, I referred to a bridge at Brandon, just south of Coventry, where the line speed restriction is 100 miles per hour. The bridge is regularly struck and trains are regularly stopped for hours at a time while a thorough inspection is carried out. Sooner or later, some bridge, if not that one, will be so badly struck as to displace the railway line, leading to a tragedy.
	Ministers will say, and newspapers will demand, that the maximum amount of money be spent on ensuring that this sort of thing does not happen again. We could do something to prevent it if the punishments were more adequate than they are and if local authorities, as well as individual drivers, accepted far more responsibility for their actions.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments, apart from Amendment No. 52 which I have a little bit of anxiety about. It is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident because of a bridge strike or a level crossing infringement, as so aptly described by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. After that accident there will of course be a public inquiry and there will be only one conclusion—that we should have done something about it and we failed. It appears that the Minister does not want to take any action. He does not want to go for sacrificial structures and he does not want to go for an increase in penalties. My greatest fear is that we will live to regret not taking the opportunity to do something about it now.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I also rise to support these amendments, which have a remarkable degree of support in every single part of the House. I do not think that there has been a word spoken from any of the Benches with which I disagree. One must take very seriously the warning from the Health and Safety Executive, which says that level crossings,
	"hold the greatest potential for catastrophic risk on the railways".
	It is where the worst accident is likely to happen, and it will happen because we are not properly controlling the use of road vehicles across level crossings.
	We have far too many level crossings that are unmanned and unpatrolled and producing the risk that gives rise to the sort of terrible accident such as took place last year at Ufton Nervet. This was the accident in which a motorist, apparently determined to commit suicide, drove his car onto the crossing, waited there for several minutes and, despite the efforts of an off-duty British Transport policeman to persuade him to move, remained in place and got hit by a high-speed train that derailed, killing the driver and five passengers. That particular crossing is very lightly used, and is one which would undoubtedly be closed by Network Rail if this set of amendments were to be passed. There are many others that come into the same category.
	I hope very much that my noble friend will respond to the mood of this debate and give us some reason to believe that the Government will act on the issue of railway level crossings at a later stage of the Bill, and that it will not be necessary for the House to divide on it. But I think that he realises that if the House does divide, the Government will not be able to win a vote on it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble friend for having done the arithmetic before I have made a contribution to the debate. He calls in aid the Health and Safety Executive with regard to level crossings, and it has identified the dangers here. However, let me assure the House that the Government are not unaware of the dangers and why we need to improve issues with regard to level crossings. The disastrous accident which happened last year at Ufton Nervet concentrated minds as accidents of that nature do. However, the Health and Safety Executive does not think that we need amendments to the legislation. It thinks that we have the necessary powers. What we need to do is to work upon what we have got more effectively than in the past.
	I am all too well aware of the fact that Network Rail has communicated its very proper anxieties about the question of level crossings and accidents in this country and the problems attendant upon level crossings. It communicated that to many noble Lords, who have taken its representations very seriously, as indeed do the Government. That is why we have been in extensive talks with Network Rail—to see how we can improve the situation. I will address those particular points in a moment. But before I do so, perhaps I may do the House a service by responding first to Amendments Nos. 55 and 56.
	Although we had an extensive discussion about level crossings in Committee, we did not get on to the issues of road stopping and damage to bridges because time was short and noble Lords were extremely co-operative in withdrawing amendments. Therefore I am minded that I have some obligation to respond to those amendments in this debate. I shall address myself to the main issue as well, but I want to discuss and put the Government's position on those amendments, because this is the first time that I have been able to identify the Government's view on these matters.
	Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 would enable a local authority by order to stop-up a road when it appears expedient in the interests of safety to members of the public using it or likely to use it. The order would be confirmed by the Secretary of State. Of course, I am mindful of safety issues, but the amendments would go too far in the wrong direction, because of the implications for access and movement, especially in rural areas where road users could be faced with extensive detours and there might be a need for additional new signing of routes because of action taken under these amendments.
	We start with the premise that a road exists because it is needed and the public have the right of passage over it. Rights of way are often ancient and removing them could have serious economic and social effects, particularly in rural areas. I should not think there is a noble Lord in this House who is not jealous over aspects of rights of way, but I remember that many noble Lords actually supported legislation on rights to roam, which also indicated how concerned we are about freedom of movement. Of course, it is the case that that freedom of movement historically preceded the railway. We all recognise that, right from the very origins of the railway, it was necessary for the safety of the railway to ensure that there were restrictions on such movements—but we must approach the question of blocking roads with some care.
	Closing a crossing could split a village or prevent people accessing work or services, so such decisions are not to be taken lightly or on narrow grounds. If a danger is caused by a crossing on a railway, a first line of action should be to remove or minimise the danger with appropriate crossing works being undertaken, rather than removing the right of passage for the general public. Costs of such works might also be expected to be somewhat less than any alternative highway works. However, the Government have not approached this debate on the basis of costs. The issue arises of relative costs for the railway and local authorities, but we are approaching these matters on the basis of what is necessary for road safety, rather than cutting corners with regard to costs. I have never advanced such an argument, either on the Floor of the House or in private discussions, when the issue has revolved around the question of costs. So it is a bit of a red herring, although I do not underestimate the significance of costs in the long run. But our approach to the amendments is not predicated on the assumption that one solution is less costly than another.
	So we have worries on the question of roads closure. In any case, a power exists under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 to make an order to stop-up a highway if a highway is considered as "unnecessary" and where traffic can be diverted to make it nearer or more convenient to the public. I believe that that test should stay in place when we are considering how we use powers to stop highways. In the event of an urgent case for stopping up because of danger to the public, a highway authority could call on its powers under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit temporarily the use of the highway, while it was bringing about such works as mentioned above by way of the permanent resolution of the matter.
	So we have powers to safeguard the railways in this respect. We do not need additional powers. We need more effective action, and it is to that that I am coming in a moment. But I wanted to predicate the debate with comments on Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, which we have not discussed, and to make it clear why we cannot accept them.
	On the more general debate, we are of course well aware of the dangers to the railway represented by problems with level crossings and what happens when things go wrong with bridges. However, it is our contention that local authorities do not need legislation to make the approaches to level crossings safer. They can do it now. We need to improve the mechanism of consultation between Network Rail and local authorities and ensure that this issue is more prominent in the consideration of both parties.
	Network Rail has made it clear how seriously it regards this issue with the activity we have outlined that has given rise to this debate. I have no doubt that it will be a feature of parliamentary consideration for some time to come. During consideration of these amendments I was able to organise a meeting, and I am glad that noble Lords reckoned it valuable enough to bring to the attention of the Minister in another place how importantly this issue was regarded on all sides of the House. He has had a discussion with Network Rail to address himself to exactly these concerns against the background of his first proposition, which was, in effect, "We are considering legislation before the Upper House at the present time, and we do not consider that this is an issue that needs a legislative solution".
	I congratulate all noble Lords who have been active on this matter, nearly all of whom have spoken in the House this afternoon and in Committee, and have sustained their concern in meetings outside this Chamber. The outcome of these meetings is that I can say that the Government have agreed to continue working with Network Rail to identify the issues of concern and ways to resolve them. We have noted that, in one area, current legislation is not adequate. It is silent in respect of which organisations railway crossing orders may be applied to. We intend to address ourselves to that legislative deficiency—a point I do not think has entirely come out in the amendments. No one amendment addresses itself precisely to that.
	I could spend endless amounts of time pointing out defects with regard to the amendments I am now discussing, but I think that that would weary the House, and in any case noble Lords have presented their arguments in terms of principle, rather than suggesting that their amendments are the clear and obvious solution to all our problems. We recognise, however, that there is a deficiency with regard to legislation, and we are prepared to address that. We will therefore take away and consider Amendment No. 54, and we will review the legislation. If it appears to be appropriate, I intend to table a government amendment on Third Reading to address these concerns.
	I am not in a position to accept the amendments in their entirety, but there is no doubt that, in proposing these amendments, noble Lords have made an excellent case about a real concern on safety. I congratulate each of the main contributors to this debate, in particular those who have tabled these amendments. We intend to act. We have identified the area where there is legislative failure. It is clear from this debate and from all our concerns in discussions with Network Rail that the process of consultation and action—not law—needs to be improved. I believe that this House has made a substantial contribution to improvement in these terms. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government have therefore been responsive, and that the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He rather hit the nail on the head right at the end when he said that what we want is some action, rather than to spend hours debating issues such as how many fairies can dance on a pin. We are not experts at drawing up law, but we have put our reasons forward quite clearly.
	Long before the Minister mentioned it, I wrote, "What we need is action". So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, we believe that the powers to stop up crossings need to be enhanced a little to take account of the safety of rail passengers. It is all very well to talk about someone having to make a longer journey, but that has to be balanced against the number of people whose lives are put at risk by not introducing such a measure.
	I hear what the Minister says. It is right that this House should put down a marker now and that the Secretary of State, or whoever moves the relevant measure in the other place, should take account of the strong views which have been expressed here tonight. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 175; Not-Contents, 146.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 56:
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT LEVEL CROSSINGS
	(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (drivers to comply with traffic signs) consisting of a failure to comply with a traffic sign placed at or near a level crossing indicating that vehicular traffic is not to proceed over the level crossing shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with six penalty points.
	(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force."
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR CARELESS OR INCONSIDERATE DRIVING CAUSING DAMAGE TO A RAILWAY OR OTHER BRIDGE OVER A ROAD
	(1) If a person causes damage to a railway or other bridge over a road by driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with not less than six penalty points.
	(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force."
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"MEASURES TO PROMOTE ROAD SAFETY AT RAILWAY AND OTHER BRIDGES
	In section 122(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (which sets out the matters to which local authorities must have regard in exercising their functions under that Act), after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(ca) the need to reduce the risk of heavy commercial and other vehicles from colliding with railway and other bridges crossing highways by installing warning devices and physical barriers on the highways approaching such bridges;"."
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"POWER TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON TRAFFIC AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS TO PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AT LEVEL CROSSINGS
	(1) Section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16) (which enables the Secretary of State to make orders as to safety arrangements at level crossings) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)(a), after "order;" insert—
	"(aa) may impose requirements on any relevant traffic or highway authority as to the provision, maintenance or operation of any such protective equipment, including the maintenance or operation of equipment provided before the making of the order;".
	(3) In subsection (6)—
	(a) for "the operator and to each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated" substitute—
	"(i) the operator;
	(ii) each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated;
	(iii) in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned,"; and
	(b) for "or local authority" substitute ", local authority or relevant traffic authority".
	(4) In subsection (8)—
	(a) after "situated" insert "and, in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned"; and
	(b) in paragraph (b), after "local authority" insert "or the relevant traffic authority concerned".
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"STOPPING UP AND DIVERSION OF CROSSINGS
	(1) Section 47 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (c. 42) (stopping up and diversion of crossing) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) for "footpath or bridleway" substitute "road".
	(3) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(3) In this section "road" means any highway or other road to which the public has access.""
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"STOPPING UP OF ROADS CROSSING RAILWAYS
	(1) Section 118A of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) for "footpath or bridleway" substitute "road".
	(3) In subsection (2) for "path or way" substitute "road".
	(4) In subsection (5) for "path or way" substitute "road".
	(5) In subsection (8) after the definition of "railway" insert—
	""road" means any highway or other road to which the public has access"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 57:
	After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
	"HIGHWAYS ACT 1980: INTERPRETATION
	(1) In section 329 of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66) (further provisions as to interpretation), for—
	(a) the entry relating to "bridleways" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
	(b) the entry relating to "cycle track" after the words "pedal cycles" insert "or human transporter";
	(c) the entry relating to "footpath" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
	(d) the entry relating to "footway" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
	(e) at end insert—
	"human transporter" means a self-balancing electric device with two driven wheels in a transverse line and a maximum unladen weight not exceeding 50 kilograms and speed limited to 13 miles per hour irrespective of gradients less than 10%."
	(2) Nothing in the Highways Act 1835 (c. 50) shall prevent a person from using a human transporter or a local authority or police force from undertaking a trial or evaluation of the human transporter as defined in section 329 of the Highways Act 1980."

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 57, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58, which both concern Segway human transporters. Before doing so, I state that I have no interest to declare. I have decided to pursue this issue on my own volition, but I have been helped by Segway during the passage of the Bill. We gave the concept a good run in Committee, and I will not repeat on Report the arguments in favour of the Segway. Most noble Lords are now familiar with what we are talking about, and many noble Lords have tried it. The software and the electronics inside the device are very much more sophisticated than might be supposed at first sight, but only those who have ridden on the device can appreciate how clever that software is.
	I am pleased that we in this House have so positively debated the Segway human transporter, but I remind noble Lords of the problem that under current UK legislation the Segway human transporter cannot be used on the highway because it is not a vehicle; and it cannot be used on the pavement because it is neither a pedestrian nor an invalid carriage. The Segway human transporter is not designed and marketed as an invalid carriage; it is much more useful than that. These devices are coming, rather like King Canute's tide. I urge the Minister to take some order-making power to allow them to be used on the pavement. Primary legislation is required; he cannot do it by means of regulation.
	Segway will not sell a Segway human transporter if it believes that if it will not be used legally. If you have a big factory, or a warehouse, or a distribution centre in which to use one, it will sell you a Segway; but it will not sell you one if it believes that you are going to use it on the pavement, because it does not want to encourage illegal use. However, it is inevitable that these devices will come into the UK market via the grey market, just as happens with vehicles. We do not want to repeat the experience of citizens' band radios—CB radios. Under the previous administration everyone was using them, all the kids were using them, but they were illegal and the government had to introduce legislation to allow them to become legal. We need to legislate first in anticipation of their arrival.
	In 1835 when the Highways Act was drafted, the Segway would have been regarded as impossible. Even 15 years ago it would have been impractical and prohibitively expensive—but now it is a reality. So what is the Minister going to do about it? I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, for one, support my noble friend on this issue. One cannot escape from legislation wherever one goes. I have been to Washington twice this year; once in April and again last week. Now Washington has little Segway depots, and all the tourists were on Segways visiting the White House and the Washington Monument and so on. There has been a change in six months in Washington; so there is obviously different legislation in the United States. They are very popular and they are selling like hotcakes. My noble friend Lord Attlee probably has an issue here that we have to address. They are certainly a good tourist initiative.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment in principle. I will not repeat what I said in Committee, but my concern is that here we are yet again discussing something that is illegal but which people are using. We talked about limousines an hour ago. It is putting the law into disrepute. I know that there is no easy solution to where these things should go, but they are here and they are being used. I wonder whether my noble friend would bring forward an amendment at Third Reading or accept an amendment from someone else at Third Reading that within a period of a year the Government would come forward with construction use regulations or something similar. That would let people know where they could use them legally, what they had to do to licence them—if that was the proposal—and it would allow people to ride them with the maximum safety for other road users and pedestrians and still have a bit of fun. That way they would get the benefit of what for some people is probably quite a useful method of transport.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I also support the amendment. We are delighted that London has been granted the Olympics, but we are told that there might be transportation problems moving personnel around. What better than we legislate that these transporters be made legal to celebrate having the Olympics in London, so that Olympic athletes and officials can be transported from central London to the Olympic stadiums?

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, as I did in Committee. I drew some comfort from the Minister's remarks in Committee when he said:
	"I can see that the form of transport has great potential".—[Official Report, 26/10/05; col. 1274.]
	He said other things that I found slightly less encouraging, but I am hoping that when he comes to reply he will be able to give us some more encouragement, because these things are coming. I spoke to a leading retailer in Oxford Street this afternoon—although I will not mention any names—and it is getting Christmas stock in of these items tomorrow. They are here, they are coming, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some encouraging words.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, both amendments include the phrase,
	"two driven wheels in a transverse line".
	The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations require that in order to have two wheels the distance between the centres of contact must be at least 460 millimetres.. Does that apply to human transporters? I do not know. Or will a lesser distance apply? In which case, the minimum distance needs to be clearly stated. I only mention this argument so that the vehicle does not fall into the definition of a motorcycle or moped, which require driving licences and insurance.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the human transporter is just one example of the very rapid movement forwards in technology today. I urge the Government to bring forward a general power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to take account of any new advances in transport.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The Segway is a motor vehicle for the purpose of road traffic legislation and that creates obvious and real difficulties. All noble Lords who have seen the Segway or have even had a chance to use it must be entranced by the technology. It is a most interesting vehicle. When I said that it had infinite potential, I did not say where it had that potential. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, will recognise that. I can think of some very safe places where it could be deployed with great efficiency and approval. But our difficulty is that people want the Segway to be used on the public highway and, in particular, on the pavement, when that would clearly present problems. To a degree, those problems would also apply to cycle lanes.
	The new technology is of great interest to us all. It was pointed out to us that it is used in some American states, including Washington DC, and also in some European countries. But there are many others where it is not and where there is also a real problem of how it would fit into road traffic. We have many interests to consult. Without prior full consultation and until we have collated and considered all the available evidence on the use of Segways, it would be irresponsible and inappropriate to make changes in primary legislation. This would be a significant step for us.
	The first time that many of us came across this vehicle was probably as recently as a couple of weeks ago. My department officials have met representatives of the company and I know that one or two of them have experienced the—dare I say it?—exhilaration of a ride on the vehicle. I say "exhilaration" because I was privileged to go on a short journey on it. I am never allowed to go more than 15 yards from your Lordships' House when I am on duty so I went 14 yards, and I can testify to the fact that it is a most interesting transport initiative.
	We have advised the company to make contact with various groups in the UK which are likely to have an interest in the vehicle, whether they are for or against the concept of human transporters, because a lot of interests have to be taken into account. The department is seeking information from the company and elsewhere about the tests, trials and studies that are carried out in other countries, and obviously, where it has been used according to the law in some states, we will take that evidence into account. We will also carefully examine material relating to other similar devices, and we will consider the next steps to be taken.
	However, it will be recognised that it would be inordinately premature for us to use a Bill which is about road safety to introduce such a vehicle on to our highways when it is not certain where it is intended that it should be used. Clearly it does not fit on to the highway so far as concerns road vehicles. It is not a cycle and does not go as fast as a cycle. If it were more like a cycle, I have no doubt that the Segway would have made more progress in places such as the Netherlands, where there is a vast plethora of dedicated cycle lanes. But, at the moment, the Dutch have reservations about the mix between Segways and cycles.
	There is a real problem in relation to this vehicle. I know that it has control speeds but its maximum speed is more than 12 miles per hour. We have to consider whether we could conceivably allow on to our pavements or pedestrianised areas a vehicle which goes three times faster than vehicles used by the disabled, which we do permit and which are limited to a speed of four miles per hour.
	The House will recognise that I do not want to be a killjoy—far from it. I meant what I said, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, referred to my interest in the technology. It is a most exciting concept. But it raises substantial problems for us in terms of the law and it would be exceedingly premature for us to accept an amendment to this Bill. Having given the subject a good airing, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that the human transporter was a vehicle and therefore its proper place would be on the roads. But can he tell the House whether we would need primary legislation to make it run legally on the roads or whether that could be done purely by regulation?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we think that it would probably need primary legislation because it raises such significant issues. It is just possible that we could deal with it if it was felt that it could be accommodated satisfactorily on British highways or pavements. We may be able to deal with it in some other way. But it appears to raise such significant issues that it would require primary legislation, not least because we cannot see where it would fit safely for its own purposes other than on pavements, which is the very place where it is least safe for others.
	This is a formidable issue. When we said to the company, "There are a great number of interests that you need to consult in order to make out the case", we meant it. We will watch these developments and will participate in any way that we can to understand the work that is taking place in this area. But we could not possibly accept an amendment to the legislation today.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he not agree that rollerbladers are allowed on the public highway, and rollerbladers go just as fast as these vehicles, if not faster?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, first, rollerblades are not powered except by humans and, secondly, they do not have the same weight as the Segway, which involves both a person and a vehicle. So they are different.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised the subject of rollerblades. The difference between a rollerblade and a Segway is that a person on a rollerblade cannot stop himself very quickly, whereas a Segway can stop very quickly indeed because the rider has only to lean back and then the software takes care of it, but I am not aware that a rollerblade contains any software.
	I believe that in London, Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham a Segway would be pretty useless on the road. It should be used primarily on the pavement. In the countryside, where I live, where there is not a hard pavement, it might be useful on the road, but its best opportunity for reducing road traffic—that is, the use of cars—will be in an urban area, and that is where it needs to be used on the pavement.
	I am still rather disappointed with the Minister—and perhaps a bit with myself in that I did not line up my ducks in order to have a Division. However, I have not done so. But the fact is that the Segway is coming. If the Minister chooses to do nothing about it, it will be ubiquitous by the time he next has the legislative opportunity to do something about it. It is the duty of the Government to anticipate changes in society and normally a lot of effort is put into doing so.
	The Minister referred to the Dutch difficulties, but that is a decision for the Dutch. They make extensive use of pedal cycles—far more than we do—so I do not think that the Dutch situation is a good model for us.
	I am suggesting only that the Minister should take an order-making power. It might only be an order-making power for a trial or one to allow a local authority to carry out a trial if it feels that that would be useful. A short while ago Ministers said that local authorities were good at making decisions to suit local needs and sometimes they say that they are not very good.
	The Minister talked about pavements and speeds. Yes, a Segway can go at 12 mph. In the country, travelling along a main road one may want to go at 12 mph, but you would be off your trolley—if I can put it that way—to go at 12 mph on a pavement. One could legislate to make it an offence to use a Segway at more than 4 mph on a pavement. A Segway has various settings for maximum speed and the maximum speed setting can be locked in its memory. If someone ran a person down at 12 mph, the speed would be locked in the memory of the Segway, so it could be seen that a person had programmed the Segway to travel at 12 mph when 4 mph is quite sufficient. Going from your Lordships' House to Pimlico, it would be fine to travel on the pavement at 4 mph—it would be wonderful.
	I am disappointed with the Minister's response but I was not minded to divide the House. The Segway is coming and the Minister will have to legislate at some stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 58A:
	After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
	"REGULATIONS CONTROLLING DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENTS
	(1) Section 220 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) (regulations controlling display of advertisements) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3), insert—
	"(3A) A local planning authority must exercise its powers so as to ensure compliance with the provisions of these regulations in its area with respect to advertising that can be seen by drivers on a special road (motorway) or a trunk road.""

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long on this amendment. It was debated at an earlier stage and the Minister replied saying that he was not in favour of requiring local authorities to do things. We said that something needed to be done about this. Advertisements are appearing alongside our motorways on trailers and van bodies and they are appearing at prominent places on trunk roads. Some local authorities with enforcement powers do something about it and others do not. Companies have been set up to sell the advertising space, even though it is illegal. The amendment would simply compel a local planning authority—"must" is inserted instead of "may"—to do something about advertisements that appear where they are illegal and where they distract drivers from the duty of looking at the traffic. That is the primary reason why advertisements were banned at those sites in the first place. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we support the amendment, but as time is moving on and as we have concluded much of our important business, I shall not enlarge further.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their contributions. The clause is designed to ensure that breaches of the control of advertisements regulations do not occur alongside motorways and trunk roads. It places a duty on local planning authorities to take enforcement action in every case where the regulations are breached. However, we shall resist the amendment because we believe that local planning authorities' enforcement powers are discretionary. A duty to enforce in all cases, irrespective of the nature and circumstances of the breach, would put an additional and unwarranted burden on local authorities. The Government do not consider that this matter should be subject to specific regulations, but, of course, they are concerned about the proliferation of advertisements alongside motorways, and are working on several initiatives to ensure that where such breaches occur, advertisements are quickly removed.
	What action are the Government taking? We have met representatives from local planning authorities, particularly in the north-west where there have been some specific problems about the M6. We have written to all local planning authorities, reminding them of their powers to act in these cases, and urging them to do so. We have had positive responses from them. The ODPM has also written to those companies and advertisers that are displaying advertisements on these sites, setting out the regulations and asking them to remove unlawful advertisements. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been working with the Highways Agency, the Local Government Association, the Planning Advisory Service and the Planning Officers Society to seek ways to deal with advertisers and to prevent these advertisements from being displayed. We are looking at other measures that we may introduce to help local authorities to deal with the problem and to eradicate unlawful motorway advertising. In view of that explanation of work that has recently been undertaken, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. A similar reply was given at a previous stage. I do not believe that the situation is being addressed adequately. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 58A shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
	Division called.
	Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 54. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
	Amendment negatived.

Lord Swinfen: moved Amendment No. 59:
	After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
	"CAUSING OR PERMITTING CHILD UNDER 14 TO RIDE A CYCLE ON ROAD WITHOUT PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR
	(1) Except as provided by regulations, it is an offence for any person to whom this subsection applies to cause or permit a child under the age of 14 years to ride a cycle on a road unless the child is wearing protective headgear, of such description as may be specified in regulations, in such manner as may be so specified.
	(2) Subsection (1) applies to the following persons—
	(a) unless the child is cycling in the course of his employment, any person who—
	(i) for the purposes of Part I of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12), has responsibility for the child;
	(ii) for the purposes of Part II of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37), has parental responsibilities (within the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36)) in relation to, or has charge or care of, the child;
	(iii) for the purposes of article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)), has parental responsibilities in relation to the child;
	(iv) (in relation to Northern Ireland) has care of the child or is, otherwise than by virtue of article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, legally obliged to maintain the child;
	(b) any person other than a person mentioned in paragraph (a) above who is above the age of 15 years and who has custody of or is in possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it;
	(c) where the child is employed and is cycling in the course of his employment, his employer and any other person to whose orders the child is subject in the course of his employment.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
	(4) In this section—
	"regulations" means regulations under section (Regulations in relation to section (Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear)); and
	"road" has—
	(a) in England and Wales the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988;
	(b) in Scotland the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 54); and
	(c) in Northern Ireland the meaning given by article 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2994 (N.I.)).
	(5) In this section and section (Regulations in relation to section (Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear)) "cycle" means a monocycle, a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle."

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60. Amendment No. 60 empowers the Secretary of State to make the regulations needed for the effective operation of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 59.
	These amendments are not the same as those that I moved in Committee. The age at which a child must wear protective headgear has been altered to children under 14, which will bring the law on children riding cycles into line with the law on children riding horses, as laid out in the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990. In Committee, the Minister said that he was concerned that the compulsory wearing of a helmet would put children off cycling. I am not aware that that happened with riding horses. I rather think that the number of children riding horses and ponies has increased since the wearing of protective headgear became compulsory. Children will still wish to cycle. It gives them a measure of independence that they crave. The Minister said that increased exercise is a major part of the Government's strategy to deal with obesity. I strongly agree that children should exercise, but it must be done safely. The wearing of protective headgear by children is compulsory in Australia, and when I was there earlier this year, I saw crowds of children happily riding around on their bicycles, all wearing protective headgear. It does not seem to have put them off in the least.
	I now turn to the question of liability. I have given the matter some more thought. I think the Government's concerns on liability are misplaced, even if the amendments were to be left as they were in Committee. That is because the accused must have caused or permitted the child to have ridden the cycle. In most cases, I imagine that only one person could have caused or permitted it to happen. In a case where a child leaves the house with his parents, not knowing whether he will ride a bike or not, and then borrows a bike from an adult, it is clear who caused or permitted it to happen. On the other hand, if the parents allow him out without a helmet, it is also clear. If the child leaves the house with a helmet on, and then takes it off, the parents cannot be said to have caused or permitted it to happen, unless they told him that he could remove it. Nevertheless, I have altered the amendments by leaving out the provision relating to the ownership of the bike. I have also provided for employers by requiring that the cycling must be in the course of the child's employment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said. Her Majesty's Government are encouraging children and young people to cycle through their Safer Routes to Schools initiative and their advice to local authorities. They wish more children to cycle, for understandable reasons. But with that encouragement comes a responsibility for the Government to take all reasonable measures to protect children from harm. Yesterday, I spoke with a paediatric nurse who is caring for a 13 year-old who fell from his bike, smashed the front of his head and damaged his frontal lobes. He is now unable to manage his emotions and is subject to outbreaks of rage. A friend of mine at school, who I used to cycle with, came off his bicycle. He called me to the hospital, and when I arrived, he had forgotten that he had called me. He experienced concussion. His personality changed following his injury. Some years later, he developed a bipolar emotional disorder—manic depression—that may be associated with that trauma.
	The overwhelming case is that helmets protect individuals from injury to the brain and that they are particularly effective in protecting children from brain injury. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, we are all concerned that children should take more exercise. I believe that obesity in children has increased by one-fifth in the past 10 years. The evidence about whether the introduction of cycle helmets in other countries has discouraged or encouraged children and adults to cycle is not clear either way. I remember visiting a Halfords store this summer and seeing a child with his mother. She was speaking to his father on her mobile phone, asking whether they should buy the larger bike. The message from the father was that they should get the larger bike. The boy was jumping up and down with joy at the prospect of buying a new bicycle. When I look in the park and observe children, I have to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, that bicycles are so attractive to children that it seems very unlikely that a significant number of them will be put off simply because they have to wear a helmet.
	On the question of enforcement, when the Home Office was discussing this, a two-year plan was proposed. The first year would focus heavily on education, promoting bicycle safety and the wearing of cycle helmets. The second year would involve law enforcement officers. When they saw groups of children, they would warn them that in a year's time, it would be against the law for them not to wear a cycle helmet. Then, once the law was put in place, letters would be sent to parents asking them to purchase a helmet and send a receipt to the office to prove it, or else they would receive other warnings.
	Twenty states in the United States, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as several other countries, have introduced these laws. The Government are actively encouraging children and young people to cycle more. For understandable reasons, we have a low usage of cycles in this country. We have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect children from harm. When parents and children are consulted about this, they favour a law to make cycle helmets mandatory.
	The Bill will provide that careless drivers who kill with no intention to do so can be sentenced to a maximum of five years' imprisonment. The Government have set aside 150 prison spaces to cater for them. Those people are harming adults and children unwittingly so, with the greatest respect to the Minister, it seems somewhat ironic that the Government are encouraging children and young people on to the streets on bicycles without taking all reasonable precautions to keep them from harm. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to have missed the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen; it was entirely because of the contretemps over Amendment No. 58A. I told my noble friend Lord Listowel yesterday that unfortunately I would not be able to support his amendment, though I pay tribute to his arguments today. As might be expected, I oppose it mainly on libertarian grounds, but on practical rather than on purist libertarian grounds.
	People of my generation cycled every bit as much when we were 11, 12 or 13 as children of that age group do today—probably more so, since there were fewer forms of alternative transport available. Neither I nor any of my great many friends and acquaintances ever suffered anything worse than a grazed knee. If children were falling onto their heads from bicycles in their hundreds every day of the week, I might think rather differently. But that does not appear to be the case, despite the moving example produced by my noble friend. One should not erode—

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the estimate for the number of children going to hospital each year with head injuries following a cycling accident is put very roughly at 26,000? I hope that may be helpful to my noble friend.

Lord Monson: My Lords, of course it is helpful, but we do not know how many of those accidents involve the head, how serious the injuries were, and, indeed, what proportion of the total number of child cyclists it represents. I appreciate, none the less, what my noble friend says, but I do not think that human freedom should be eroded in order to save the occasional individual injury.
	There is one other point. The amendment extends, rather surprisingly, to tricycles, which surely are much safer than bicycles. I should not have thought that was necessary. However, that is for the sponsors of the amendment to answer.
	There is a further practical objection, which has been touched on obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The law requiring equestrians under the age of 14 to wear protective headgear when riding on a public highway is sometimes prayed in aid, but realistically it is difficult—not impossible but difficult—for someone of that age to go riding without adult input or, at any rate, adult co-operation. The horse has to be stabled or, if not stabled, kept in a paddock owned by an adult. It has to be watered and fed daily. The bridle, saddle and other tack has to be provided and kept in good working order. So it is fairly unlikely that a child under the age of 14 would ride out on a public highway without the knowledge of the parent or the guardian. How very different where the bike is concerned. A 12 or 13-year old could grab his bike and zoom off out of sight of older members of his family in no time at all, and children of that age nowadays take instructions from their parents with a giant pinch of salt. For all those reasons I believe that the amendment is misconceived.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I too missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in the Chamber, but I heard it upstairs. I used to work in what we used to call the "blood and bones" department of our local hospital. I saw first-hand a number of children with severe head injuries who had fallen or been knocked off their bicycles. That has left a very strong impression on me.
	My two granddaughters, who might, not disparagingly, be described as rather vain little girls, are very happy to wear cycle helmets when they ride their bicycles, so there is no objection from them. Just as children will remind their parents to fasten their seatbelts, and they religiously wear their seatbelts in the back seats of cars when adults do not, I think that children can be encouraged to wear safety helmets. I would very much like to see this become law.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am not competent to take a close view on the validity of the amendment as it is written and its practicality, but I should simply like to follow the noble Countess in her remarks about trying to create an atmosphere, a culture if you like, in which young people automatically wear helmets when cycling.
	Cycling is extremely dangerous. Cyclists are the least well defended users of the highway—unless horsemen are even less well defended, because there are a great many riders' accidents. It would be extremely advantageous if we could cultivate a way of making sure that, in the same way as they use their seatbelts, children put on a hard hat when cycling. For that reason, were the noble Lords to take the amendment to a vote, I should be extremely tempted to support them.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, while I think the amendment is extremely well meaning and that it is a very good idea for people to take proper safety measures, whatever it is they are doing that is dangerous, I am against compulsion. There are two sides to it. First, there is enough compulsion about things in life, and it should be up to individuals largely to decide. Children, I realise, are not mentally experienced enough to always make correct decisions, but they can be influenced very strongly by their parents. That brings me on to the business about permission—who is liable?
	Living in the country, our children go in and out and pop on a bicycle. They may decide to unlock the bike shed and get one out. We have no idea really what they are up to, where or when. They come and go as they please. On the practicality of suggesting they should be checked every time they want to go on a bike ride or whatever, they have general permission to use their bicycles. I am not quite sure how parents like us, who have a relaxed attitude to the comings and goings of their children, would fare on this. So I feel that that is probably the biggest downside. I do not like the potential liability and the potential chance for some person in authority to bully adults about their children's behaviour when maybe the adult has not been in a position to do much about it. I do not think that we should over control society.
	The real fact of the matter is that we are more likely to die of a heart attack, cancer or a stroke, or something related to that. Your chances of being damaged badly in an accident realistically are very low.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Of course I share the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who moved the amendment, that we want to improve the safety of our young cyclists. That is exactly what we have been doing.
	Taking the period of 1994 to 1998 as a baseline, we have reduced deaths and serious injury for child cyclists by 49 per cent. So no one should underestimate the Government's commitment to improving safety for our children. We intend to improve on that position. We are not complacent. I want to emphasise that of course this improvement in the statistics is a reflection of a whole plethora of measures that we have taken to improve child cyclists' safety. Our programme includes the education of children and their carers, the education of drivers to take more care about child cyclists, publicity, better child cycle training and improved infrastructure to increase the opportunities for them to cycle safely on our roads and cycle paths. We include in that the promotion of the wearing of helmets because we are not going to contend with noble Lords the fact that the wearing of the helmet is a help to a cyclist if he has a serious accident and lands on his head. So we are at one with noble Lords in this respect.
	We know from regular monitoring of helmet wearing that there is a long way to go to increase such wearing. Boys are most reluctant to wear helmets. Set against a generally rising trend, the wearing rate for boys has gone down from 15 per cent in 1994 to 11 per cent in 2004. For girls, the wearing rate has risen to 26 per cent. Inevitably, a large proportion of those not wearing helmets are young adolescents who have accidents. That points to the nature of the difficulty: we start from a low base. I take on board the representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on the question of personal responsibility; I shall also comment on their points about who is liable in a moment. The problem with the amendment is that we are starting from such a low base, but it would move us up to 100 per cent by law. We cannot safely promote legislation on that basis now. We are aware of the contribution that the wearing of cycle helmets can make to road safety, but to move from a position of low acceptance of that need to 100 per cent compulsion is a significant leap that we do not think is justified.
	We have reservations on the issue of liability. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, say that he had listened to my remarks in Committee and I am grateful to him for having done that. I addressed the issue of liability. But the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right: it is not easy to identify who is liable. It is not clear who, if anyone, will be responsible for the crucial offence of causing or permitting the offence from the range of persons listed in the amendment. Suppose that a child cycles home from school. Are the parents responsible or is the school responsible? Is the school responsible as the person who has custody or possession of the bike before the child rides home? What if the school has a rule that helmets must be worn but the child does not wear one? Where does responsibility lie? We honestly think that there are real problems about ambiguity and who will be responsible. That will always be a question of fact in the circumstances. They are overlapping responsibilities. It may not be clear whether the school or the parent is responsible in such cases.
	I recognise that noble Lords will be disappointed by my response. I know that others share their views. The measure was introduced in a Private Member's Bill in the other place last year. The Government will not renege on our major commitment to improving child cycling safety, but we do not think that compulsion at this stage would produce the results that we want. We will keep a watchful and monitoring eye on the situation. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the Government will not fail in our commitment to improve child cycling safety statistics and, on that basis, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he aware of research from Australia undertaken by McDermott in which, at secondary school level, before education on bicycle safety, 2 per cent of those cyclists were wearing helmets; after education, 11 per cent were; but, after legislation, 42 per cent of secondary schoolchildren were wearing helmets? There was an even more remarkable response from primary schools.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if I was not aware of it before, I am now. However, the noble Earl will recognise that if 42 per cent are compliant, the Australians, or that particular state, have a law that the majority of young cyclists are not obeying. In this country, we are concerned about obedience to the law. In fact, the great strength of our safety measures is that we do not propose laws that people can then safely and easily ignore; we propose laws by which we expect people to abide. That is why, as I have argued before, the driving test requirements in this country are so much more stringent than elsewhere in the world. We expect people to reach that level of competence. The same thing applies to observation of the law.
	As the noble Earl will freely concede, driving conditions in much of Australia are somewhat different, given the vastly greater population of people in crowded islands. We must address things differently. I hope that he will accept that, although I recognise his statistics, I would not take any joy in a law that the majority of our fellow citizens disregarded.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister's last remarks are very interesting, bearing in mind adherence to the law on seatbelts. To start with, very few people wore their seatbelts. To start with, it was not compulsory in the back of a car. It now is. If the Minister is fortunate enough to get an empty taxi to take him home tonight, he will find that there is a notice in the back of the taxi telling him that it is against the law not to wear his seatbelt. So the situation changes. It changes with education, I agree—in this respect, education of children on cycles—but in the past it has changed with education of adults in their motor vehicles.
	The Minister asked: who is responsible for ensuring that the child wears a helmet? In a car, the driver of the car is responsible for the passengers wearing a seatbelt, as well as himself. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said that his children took their bicycles when they wanted to go out. When my children were young, there were standard instructions and rules that they had to obey, and they were in trouble if they did not. There can be a standing instruction that whenever they take their bicycles, they wear a helmet. That is not difficult. I know that children do not always obey their parents—I quite agree about that—but it is not difficult to lay down boundaries that they are not supposed to cross. Those boundaries get relaxed as the children get bigger. Later on, they are allowed out beyond nine o'clock at night, and so on. But with small children, you can lay down the rule that they must wear helmets and they are in trouble—sent to their beds, or whatever—if they disobey that rule.
	Also, schools can lay down school rules that children leaving school or riding around in school must wear a helmet or they will be punished. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he did not support the amendment because 100 or so children might die or have a head injury every year if they did not have a helmet. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out to him that 26,000 children were injured with head injuries every year, which is a rather different figure.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that it was good to create a culture of helmet wearing. I agree. As I said, in Australia, compulsion is creating a culture in which children are out wearing their helmets the whole time. Any new law takes time to bed down and for everyone to obey it because not everyone is aware of it. The Minister pointed out that the percentage of boys wearing a helmet has reduced recently. That is a very good reason for making it compulsory. He also said that we would be starting from a low base and that we would need to move immediately to 100 per cent wearing of helmets. The argument about helmets applies in exactly the same direction as the argument that the Government used on drivers' use of mobile phones, so that point will not wash.
	However, my noble friend Lady Hanham has put to me the argument, which she did not reiterate today, that my amendment would make children criminals. I shall look at that before Third Reading because I do not wish to make children criminals if I can help it. But it is important that we make it compulsory for children under 14 to wear protective headgear. I will reserve my right to bring the matter before your Lordships' House at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: moved Amendment No. 61:
	After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
	"HACKNEY CARRIAGES: SUPPLEMENTARY LICENSING CONDITIONS
	(1) In section 6(6) of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, c. 115) (definition of "matter of fitness" for purposes of grant of hackney carriage licence) after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(c) the matters set out in subsection (6A) of this section.
	(6A) The matters referred to in subsection (6)(c) are that any vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage under this section shall—
	(a) have been constructed specifically for use as a hackney carriage,
	(b) be used for no other purpose,
	(c) have hinged doors,
	(d) have access for disabled passengers at the side, and
	(e) have a rear window consisting of a single pane."
	(2) In section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (licensing of hackney carriages), before subsection (1) insert—
	"(A1) A district council may grant a licence for a hackney carriage only if the conditions in subsection (A2) are satisfied.
	(A2) The conditions are that any vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage under this section shall—
	(a) have been constructed specifically for use as a hackney carriage,
	(b) be used for no other purpose,
	(c) have hinged doors,
	(d) have access for disabled passengers at the side, and
	(e) have a rear window consisting of a single pane.""

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, this amendment deals with the law governing hackney carriages and taxis across the United Kingdom. The law is derived from a number of Acts of Parliament, some very ancient. The earliest that I am aware of are the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, which the first part of this amendment seeks to amend. The amendment deals with the safety hazards created by hackney carriages that load wheelchair users from the rear, those that have split rear windscreens and those with sliding doors. It also insists that all taxis in the UK are purpose-built and not converted vans. I shall deal briefly with each issue.
	Numerous local authorities already ban taxi vehicles into which wheelchair users are loaded from the rear; they include major cities such as London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield. The main reason for my amendment is safety. Where taxis are lined up bumper to bumper at a railway station or airport rank, there is no space to pull forward safely. To load from the back they would have to put their nose into the flow of traffic and create a hazard. It is not surprising, therefore, that charities such as RADAR, the Spinal Injuries Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—I declare an interest as a former president—all support that view. It has also been supported in two Early-Day Motions in another place and by fire brigades, which report that they often find it difficult to extract wheelchair users in rear-loading vehicles involved in rear-end shunts.
	Rear windscreens are a road safety issue. Many converted-van taxis have split rear windscreens and provide rear access through van-type doors. They have a central pillar in the rear windscreen that restricts the driver's rear view and creates a large blind spot where children could be hidden and consequently hit when the vehicle is reversing. It also leads to drivers colliding with parked cycles and motorcycles hidden in the blind spot when they are reversing. The amendment insists that all hackney carriages should have a one-piece, single-pane rear windscreen.
	On hinged versus sliding doors, the amendment would adopt the same practice as exists in the city of New York, where sliding doors on taxis for non-disabled passengers were outlawed by Mayor Giuliani in 1996 and all vehicles with sliding doors had to be converted to use swing doors. Passengers who get out of vehicles through sliding doors on to a road are often at risk, as drivers coming up from behind will often not notice that a sliding door is opening. The first thing that they see is a leg or body emerging from the vehicle. Swing-hinged doors provide a visible barrier and create space for the passenger to exit.
	I should say a word about why all taxis should be purpose built. The iconic London black cab is the ideal for others to emulate. If all hackney carriages looked like those, the travelling public would be less confused and much safer. I beg to move.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend has introduced his amendment exceedingly well. I have only one further thing to add: I support it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment. We certainly agree with his main proposition that accessibility for disabled people is an important factor in taxi provision. That is why my honourable friend the Minister in another place has made clear our expectation that, within the next decade, vehicles will comply in those terms in prescribed areas. We say "in prescribed areas" because there is a difference between taxis used in urban areas and those used in rural ones.
	I accept that we want disabled access but we may be prepared to tolerate different forms of that in different parts of the country. I fear that my noble friend is proposing that the black cab should be a universal model for taxis in all areas, which would have significant implications for the employment, use and provision of taxis in many parts of the country. Whole livelihoods would be destroyed if all taxis had to be black cabs. The technical specifications of the black cab are extremely significant, onerous and expensive. The noble Lord will know the cost of a black cab. A lot of taxis across the country provide an exceptional service to the many citizens who depend upon them but are run by people who could not invest in a black cab.
	I shall give one obvious illustration: one specification of black cab design is that they should have the extraordinary and hugely admired limited turning circle. Drivers of ordinary vehicles are left in glorious envy of that feature when they see London taxis and other vehicles spin on the proverbial sixpence. But turning-circle specifications are not needed on cabs in other parts of the country. They are needed in some cities, which is why we see the so-called London cab in Manchester, Leeds and elsewhere, but a turning circle is of limited concern to users in many other places.
	I understand that my noble friend seeks to ensure that the taxi trade serves citizens to the best of its ability. There is no doubt that we will insist on that. My honourable friend the Minister in the other place has indicated that he works to a timescale for compliance in that respect. But that is vastly different from an amendment that would produce a universal design concept. Although the black cab is the glory of London and greatly used in some of our other major cities, it is scarcely the basis for the design of taxis for hire across much of the United Kingdom.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his considered reply to this very short debate. It is too late at night, and too late in the Bill, for a lengthy debate about the role of the hackney cab in the United Kingdom. I am glad that he pays tribute to the status of the London cab, as it is much admired by cities elsewhere in the world. I was also reassured by my noble friend's remarks about provision for disabled passengers. I will read very carefully what he has said but I do not wish to press the amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 62:
	After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
	"REMOVAL OF VEHICLES BY POLICE CONTRACTED RECOVERY SCHEMES
	In section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (removal of vehicles etc.), after subsection (2)(c) insert—
	"(d) may, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f), provide for Police Contracted Recovery Schemes;
	(e) any regulations for a scheme under subsection (2)(d) shall provide that—
	(i) all appointed recovery operators are accredited to an International Standards Organisation standard;
	(ii) a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) is, subject to sub-paragraph (iii) or (iv), given the opportunity to arrange removal himself;
	(iii) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if a constable believes safety or other road users would be compromised and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal before the appointed recovery operator;
	(iv) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if the road on which the vehicle is permitted to rest is a special road and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal within a time specified in the regulations or one hour, whichever is the greater;
	(v) if a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) arranges removal of the vehicle himself and his choice of recovery operator arrives before the appointed recovery operator, he shall be under no obligation to the appointed recovery operator or the authority;
	(vi) neither the authority, the chief police officer or the police authority may benefit from a preferential scale of charges or free services from an appointed recovery operator;
	(vii) when a vehicle has been abandoned by the owner or registered keeper the authority shall pay the appointed recovery operator the charges prescribed under section 102 of this Act;
	(viii) an appointed recovery operator shall not be required to give any financial or other consideration for being appointed;
	(ix) the police authority may make a financial charge, as prescribed, against the person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1), for despatching the appointed recovery operator, and such a charge may be collected by the appointed recovery operator;
	(x) any Scheme must allow for competition, new operators joining the scheme, and aim to have operators no further than a prescribed distance from each other;
	(xi) no person shall be appointed under a Police Contracted Recovery Scheme if he is not of good repute as defined in sub-paragraph (xii);
	(xii) a person is of good repute if he meets similar requirements to paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c. 23);
	(xiii) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing no more than 3500 kilograms unless approved by the chief officer of police on each occasion;
	(xiv) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing more than 3500 kilograms unless there are unusual difficulties requiring extra facilities, but rates shall not exceed those published under sub-paragraph (xv); and
	(xv) appointed recovery operators shall publish their scale of charges in such form as may be prescribed in one or more local papers;
	(f) before making any regulations under subsection (2)(d) the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers necessary and in particular the authorities empowered by regulations under section 99(1).""

Earl Attlee: My Lords, Amendment No. 62 concerns breakdown schemes operated by the police. Clearly, it is very important that roads are kept clear in the event of a breakdown and that the police will have to operate a scheme. Before much longer, on very high usage roads such as the M25, we will have to consider a free compulsory scheme to remove broken-down vehicles very quickly. As we all know, they cause serious problems. We are not there yet, but we will need a scheme which is along the lines of the schemes for roadworks.
	Currently, there are serious problems, which I will describe in a moment. I am a little disappointed that I have to move this amendment. I suggested to the Minister that he might organise a meeting with a Home Office Minister and officials at some time in the future—not during the passage of the Bill—possibly in the new year. Unfortunately, he was unable to offer that. I suspect that my comments about the Home Office in respect of the amendment about causing death by careless driving were less than helpful.
	Amendment No. 62 is on page 12 of the Marshalled List. It may be useful for your Lordships to glance at it because I intend to go through it. I propose a list of factors that need to be considered in a police scheme, but there are some difficulties. Sub-paragraph (i) of Amendment No. 62 provides that all operators should operate to an International Standards Organisation standard. Sub-paragraph (ii) reiterates the current situation; that is, when a motorist breaks down he has a choice of how his vehicle is recovered. Unfortunately, the police sometimes are economical with the truth and let the motorist think that he has no choice and that he has to use a police-appointed garage, which is not the case. Later, I shall describe some problems with the police-appointed garage. The amendment suggests that the motorist should be able to exercise his choice. However, sub-paragraph (iii) puts a time limit on that, stating that the motorist should not be able to compromise road safety, which is particularly important on a motorway where it is vital that vehicles are removed quickly. Sub-paragraph (iv) would set a time limit for how long a vehicle should be allowed to stay on a motorway. I suggest regulations but, in any case, the time limit should be no more than one hour.
	The amendment also provides for what happens if the police appoint a recovery operator against the wishes of the customer, but the customer's garage gets there first. In that situation, it would be hard luck for the appointed garage. I do not understand why the police should be allowed to insist on using their appointed garage when the customer's choice of recovery firm arrives first.
	Sub-paragraph (vi) is very important. At the moment, the police or police authority benefit from those schemes because they obtain free services on the back of the schemes. These services are not free. They are paid for by the motorist who breaks down. For example, the police will seek to obtain free storage of vehicles involved in crime and free recovery for their own vehicles. I hesitate to use the word "corrupt", but if the average motorist knew that police vehicles were recovered for free and that the ordinary travelling public must pay, he would be a bit disappointed, to say the least. The amendment also provides for the current system where abandoned vehicles can be removed by the police.
	The amendment also provides that an appointed garage should not have to pay for the privilege of being on the police list. At the moment, it has to pay a considerable sum of money to be on the police rota when it wants to provide a service for the public. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that is desirable. My amendment also provides for when an appointed garage recovers a vehicle. The motorist has to pay for that recovery. It will not be free.
	Sub-paragraph (xi) makes it clear that the scheme must allow for new operators in the scheme. Sub-paragraph (xii) provides that a recovery operator must be of "good repute". Clearly, the recovery operator might deal with a vulnerable motorist who has broken down in the middle of the night. We do not want people of no good repute involved in the industry. Sub-paragraphs (xiii) and (xiv) allow for different rates for different sizes of vehicles. Obviously, it is much more expensive to recover a heavy commercial vehicle than a light vehicle. Under sub-paragraph (xv), when an operator wants to charge very high rates in order to recover the cost of extremely expensive equipment, it must advertise its rates in the local paper, which might make interesting reading if an operator wants to charge extortionate rates.
	My greatest concern about current police schemes is that the police or police authority benefit from free recovery services. In addition, operators have to pay to be on the scheme. There have been a number of court cases involving police schemes. During the Police Reform Bill I tabled exactly the same amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his customary way, accepted that there was a serious problem, but I am not convinced that we have made any progress. I was a little disappointed that the Minister was unable to arrange a meeting with me and officials at leisure; that is, at some time next year and not while the Bill is in progress in your Lordships' House. That is always difficult. This is an additional amendment which deals with some road safety as well as wider issues, and Home Office issues to boot. I will be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say on this important subject. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have been remiss in not arranging that meeting, although the noble Earl will recognise that there were one or two quite significant issues with the Bill which inevitably had priority and which directly concern officials in my department. He is right that the meeting that he wants involves Home Office officials. Let me assure the noble Earl that of course I will arrange such a meeting. I will let him know as soon as I have done so. We hope to achieve that possibly in the new year rather than at this stage. My priority now is to deal with the passage of this Bill, which I had hoped we might complete before Christmas. But it may be a new year's present rather than the Christmas present that we all desired.
	I understand the points that the noble Earl has made, some of which are very valid. But they are points of detail about the way in which things are done. We do not think that the amendment is necessary. After all, the police have been removing vehicles as necessary under the Act for more than 20 years and have not felt that the lack of regulations relating to their contractual arrangements affect their efficiency in any way. We do not see why we need to increase the regulatory burden without a proven and obvious need. I do not think that the noble Earl has made out his case in those terms, although he has identified certain weaknesses which we intend to address. But we do not think that we need statutory change in order to do that.
	A great deal of work is under way in the context of the Highways Agency that will lead to its traffic officers, where appropriate and authorised—the noble Earl will know that that comes into force under legislation that has been passed only recently—arranging removals on the strategic road network and adjoining roads.
	The agency will need its own contracts for this purpose, but the police will retain their powers on the network and continue to be responsible for removals on other roads, so their contractual arrangements will also continue. Obviously we want consistency between the two groups of operators, if I can define them in those terms, and to that end we see the necessity for effective collaboration. The agency, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the insurance industry and the operators are engaged in discussion at regular meetings and, recently, at a workshop which was deemed by most as very successful.
	I recognise the concerns underlying the noble Earl's amendment, and if I thought they were not being addressed I would be less confident about asking him to withdraw it. He has identified where additional work needs to be done. I can assure him that we are doing that work and that we do not need to change the law in order to effect improvement. On that basis, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that response from the Minister. He has acknowledged that there are some difficulties and he has done so in a more helpful way than I had anticipated. But I think he does not quite appreciate one of the changes that has taken place in recent years. In days of old, the police headquarters would ring up a garage on the rota. No one used to have to pay to be on that rota, at least not legally. Today, however, they are often managed by commercial concerns which take a big cut for themselves, funded by the motorist. The Minister has given a guarded acknowledgment of the difficulties here.
	I want to sound a word of caution regarding the insurance industry, because it is part of the problem. If a vehicle of very low value is involved in a write-off collision, the recovery operator still has to keep the vehicle in a secure compound for some time. Insurance assessors are very poor at getting to the recovery firm to assess such vehicles and declaring them as write-offs. That links in with problems I discussed in relation to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill where vehicles are not declared to be write-offs fast enough. So the insurance industry itself has something of a case to answer.
	I have no intention of returning to this issue. I am grateful for the Minister's response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 44 [Minor corrections]:
	[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 52, line 14, at end insert—
	"(6) In Schedule 1 to that Act (offences to which certain sections apply), after the entry relating to section 94A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
	
		
			  
			 "RTA section 99(5) Driving licence holder failing to surrender licence and counterpart. Section 6 of this Act.""

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to reintroduce the entry for Section 99(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the table in Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so as to provide for Section 6 of that Act to apply to Section 99(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The entry was repealed in error by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004, which came into force on 22 July 2004. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister explain what effect the omission has had? If this provision has not been in force for a year, but is now being replaced, have we missed it?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hope that it has had a minimal effect, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness to let her know whether it has had more than that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee: moved Amendment No. 65:
	After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
	"GRADUATED LEARNING
	(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 97 (grant of licences), after subsection (6) insert—
	"(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, require a new driver prior to driving accompanied on the road to pass an initial test of competence.
	(8) In considering such regulations, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he considers appropriate.
	(9) In setting such regulations, the Secretary of State may limit the scope and applicability to such times and places as he considers appropriate.""

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the background to this amendment is the anomaly reflected by new young drivers. As we know, while 17 to 21 year-olds account for roughly 10 per cent of driving licences, nevertheless they are involved in 20 per cent of crashes. Most of those accidents occur within the first six months of their licensed driving. In Committee a number of amendments were moved to address this anomaly, all on the theme of restricting newly qualified drivers. The Minister was reluctant to support any of them. However, in explaining his position he did say that he favoured a graduated approach to learning. This amendment seeks to achieve just that.
	First, it would require some training before a provisional licence is issued at all. Secondly, it would enable pilot schemes for particular regions and for certain lengths of time. Thirdly, it would permit the Secretary of State to set up pilot training schemes so that later on he could extend to the whole country a good system of graduated learning based on properly accumulated evidence.
	The proposal for training in advance of the provisional licence issued to car drivers borrows from the current procedure for motorcyclists. They have to go through a compulsory basic training test. This ensures a level of competence in handling and manoeuvring before going out on the road and before the motorcyclist can ride with L-plates. Early training before the provisional licence equally applied to car drivers could well include hazard perception. That component is already included in the main driving theory test. As such, it is one of several examples of early training which could come before the provisional licence to good effect, and without much extra cost or complication.
	However, the Minister may well argue that it would be premature to deploy any of the measures in this amendment until next year when we have the results of the research being conducted by the Department for Transport. That research is on the training and testing of young and novice drivers. Its timing and substance are therefore particularly welcome and useful. There are two ways in which this amendment precisely assists those endeavours. First, if adopted, it can provide a framework for action on graduated learning. And secondly, if not adopted, the Minister may feel able to give us instead a guarantee now that the Government will definitely take action on the department's report once it is published next year. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, of course I must support this amendment in so far as I heard mention of the words "pilot schemes". As the Minister knows, I am terribly keen on enabling the introduction of pilot schemes. The amendment we discussed earlier was perhaps a better one, but there are aspects of this one that are quite interesting. I certainly hope that the Minister will meet with us over the next few days to discuss what could be done. If anything, this amendment may be too prescriptive and it may be preferable to introduce a form of enabling legislation along the lines we talked about on my earlier amendment.
	If the results due next year of the department's review highlight the need for a pilot scheme, we will have missed the opportunity to provide for it in this legislation. That is yet another argument for introducing a form of enabling provision. But as I said when speaking to my amendment, it is not the words but the principle that we are keen for the Minister to accept.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the amendment, and the offer of a meeting from the noble Baroness of course delights me. I happen to be busy in London on Friday and therefore would be delighted to meet her and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, at five o'clock in the afternoon if that is mutually convenient. If not, we will have to postpone it to a slightly later date, and I shall work towards an arrangement. I shall be happy to discuss these issues further but, as the House will recognise, my role today is to deal with the amendment.
	The noble Earl understands the principle in regard to these issues. I hope that I successfully adumbrated them in Committee; namely, that the Government want to ensure that graduated learning happens before the test. The amendment, as the noble Earl explained, is directed at the period before someone is issued with a provisional licence. That is a sticking point because it would require a new driver to pass an initial test of competence prior to driving on the road.
	I have to say to the noble Earl that we are in fundamental disagreement about the best way of equipping people to learn competence on the road. I am not sure what the test would seek to assess at such an early stage. It could not assess practical competence on the road because, by definition, the individual concerned would not have had any practical experience, and we believe that practical experience on the road is fundamental to the process of learning to drive. All research shows that those who have more practice do better and that there is nothing to match the experience of being behind the wheel—suitably supervised, of course, as all learner drivers must be.
	Let me say en passant that learner drivers do not comprise a high accident statistic. That should not come as a surprise to anyone in the House as we know that learner drivers drive under supervision. We do not have significant accident rates of people who are learning to drive under the supervision of a driving instructor—although most driving instructors will often indicate that they are somewhat surprised when things do not happen in the way the statistics indicate.
	I am not in favour of making people take the driving theory test or some other form of assessment before getting a provisional licence. As the noble Earl will recognise, our theory test has two elements to it; that is, knowledge and understanding of the Highway Code and other matters relating to safe driving; and a hazard perception skills test which uses film clips of real driving. I continually offer an open invitation to noble Lords to participate in that test. They will take it under my strict supervision—not that I am any authority on the test at all but I had the good fortune to sail through it with flying colours—and woe betide anyone who sits the test in my company and achieves a lower score. Nevertheless, everyone is very welcome to join me on that account.
	It would be an obvious problem to say to some people that they cannot have a provisional licence without taking a preliminary test when that is not the general rule. That is the problem with the pilot. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has emphasised the virtue of pilots—that is fine—but the problem with a pilot in this area is that the people participating in it would be putting themselves at a lower stage than every other member of the community. That is why we have difficulty with the concept.
	Our approach is illustrated by the driver's record, published by the Driving Standards Agency and issued with all provisional licences. It is a form of logbook. We know there are others, sometimes prepared by driving instructors. It is a simple tool to measure competence as people progress with their learning. The department wants to understand how the driver's record is working and whether it can be improved. That is why we have invited tenders for research into this and intend to let a research contract on this issue next year. So we are being proactive in this area and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will welcome that.
	It is also very important that learning does not stop on passing the test. That is why newly qualified drivers have—as the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, have emphasised to me on many occasions—a higher risk of accident than more experienced drivers. It is scarcely surprising that this happens. We are running a very large-scale research project on this issue. Participants have been randomly selected in "cohorts" from those taking the practical test. The study looks at how they learned and how they performed in the driving test. For those who have passed the test, it also looks at their first three years as qualified drivers, including their accident record. It is too soon to discuss the results but it will be recognised in all parts of the House that this is valuable work.
	Finally, I draw attention to the importance of training for driving for work. There is more training and a further test for driving larger commercial vehicles, buses and coaches, as the House will be aware.
	I emphasise to the noble Earl that I cannot accept his amendment but I certainly accept his aspiration to improve the quality and standards of people as they go through the process of learning to drive. We have a series of strategies which are producing those results. On that basis, I hope he feels reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. The central point at the back of what we are discussing is the inconsistency concerning young drivers: 17 to 21 year-olds comprise 10 per cent of licence holders but account for 20 per cent of crashes. Many of us believe that pilot schemes are an effective way of tackling the problem, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes reminded us when she brought forward her very good amendment earlier. For these pilots are able to investigate a variety of expedients, including graduated learning, here discussed, and the system of P-plates for young drivers which my noble friend Lady Gardner advocates.
	There may be very little between the Minister and myself on this issue. I believe from his remarks that he continues to support the whole idea of graduated learning, although he may take exception—and perhaps have good reason for so doing—to my proposal to begin graduated learning before the provisional licence is issued. There is no particular reason why graduated learning should begin there. At the same time, it is quite logical that it should. Yet if the Minister brings forward his own scheme to encourage better driving at different stages, then he has achieved the same purpose.
	However, what many of us consider more important than anything else in the interest of saving lives is the resolve to take action on the evidence of the anomaly before us. Certainly we await the department's report with great interest. I shall study what the Minister has said and may well return to the matter at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 66:
	After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
	"REGULATIONS
	(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 41 (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles), after subsection (2), insert—
	"(2A) The Secretary of State's data port."
	(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) "The Secretary of State's data port" means an electrical connector fitted to a vehicle which, when connected to other suitable components, will provide data that reveals—
	(a) if the brake pedal is being operated,
	(b) if the indicators are being operated,
	(c) if the ABS or EBS system is being active,
	(d) the input or position of the accelerator control, and receive data that will cause the vehicle to reduce speed.""

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 66, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68.
	These amendments concern the future—they are blue skies amendments. As we heard on my Segway amendment, "The future is nearly here!". One of the difficulties with new technology in vehicles is what to do about the legacy fleet. I am not talking about historical vehicles but the previous generation of vehicles. Amendment No. 66 provides for what I call a "Secretary of State's port", rather like a computer USB port, which would allow future black boxes to be plugged in—perhaps even as a daisy chain—as new devices become available. This could include an accident data recorder, a road user charging unit and devices to limit a vehicle's speed so that the driver cannot inadvertently exceed the speed limit. I apologise for not moving my earlier amendment in regard to the adaptor speed control but my amendment about the Secretary of State's port provides a means of implementing it. We have the technology now to prevent drivers from inadvertently exceeding the speed limit. Why do we not use it?
	I fully appreciate one of the Minister's concerns about the Secretary of State's data port. It should be done at European level; it is not appropriate to do something like that at national level because the motor manufacturers will want to make all the vehicles, engine management computers and wiring systems the same throughout Europe at least, if not throughout the world. It would be no good the UK insisting on a special port. I am sure the Minister has that in his brief.
	I suggested at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings terminating the requirement to register number plate suppliers. In that case, the Government were trying to control number plates used to identify a vehicle. But number plates are very cheap and easy to make. Would it not be far better very strictly to control the sale and supply of a vehicle's engine management computer? It is a very expensive device, so it could justify careful controls. It is generally reliable, not easily stolen and could easily be made to emit an identifying signal to the authorities. The Dart Tag, used to travel across the Dartford river crossing, is a good example of a very small electronic device that enables the authorities—the Dartford river crossing, in this case—to register that a vehicle has passed.
	Engine management computers are very difficult to interfere with; it would be possible to introduce severe penalties for interfering with them because doing so would need special equipment and it could not be done by accident. If we use the engine management computer to identify the vehicle, we would still need the number plates, just for convenience, to avoid accidentally trying to get into someone else's vehicle.
	Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 would introduce a choice of two accident data recording devices. I suspect that the Minister will reject both. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not here to speak to his amendment. I know that he is very keen on the issue but it would have been bizarre if we had both put our names to each other's competing amendment.
	During the debate on causing death by careless driving, noble Lords identified that it is very difficult to secure a conviction. Dangerous driving is difficult to prove; it is difficult to convince a jury that dangerous driving was involved. Very often, a component of dangerous driving is harsh acceleration and deceleration. These accelerations are very easy to measure and record electronically. Harsh cornering can also be measured as a lateral acceleration. Therefore, harsh and inappropriate cornering can also be measured and recorded.
	In the event of an accident, a point of dispute is often the signal being displayed. Let us suppose that an accident occurs when someone emerges from a junction, but his defence is that the vehicle which drove into his side was displaying a turn left signal so that he believed the approaching vehicle was going to turn into the road from which he was emerging. That is difficult to prove—it is one man's word against another's. But an accident data recording device could prove that; not only could it prove what signal the driver was attempting to display, it could also show whether the lamps were shining.
	I have no intention of testing the opinion of the House. I regard this as an opportunity for the Minister to tell us his thinking about the future, what we can do with technology, particularly in respect of adaptive speed control and the accident data recorder, which is the key point in Amendments Nos. 67 and 68. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me the opportunity to look into the future and have a perspective that is much wider than our normal humble concerns. I do not always share his enormous enthusiasm for the technology of the future. In 30 years of loyally, and with great reward, driving Rover cars, the only time I ever had trouble with one was when I was driving past an RAF station on the A1 which succeeded in producing an electronic signal which cut out all Rover cars of that year and make that went past it. Consequently, the noble Earl is proposing this engineering monitoring system before a rather prejudiced Minister. Of course, I recognise that as technology moves on, these small imperfections are things of the past and will never happen again.
	The installation of electronic recording devices to capture data on the behaviour of a driver of a road vehicle or certain functional parameters of the vehicle might bring great benefits to accident analysis. We recognise how that would improve our position on enhancing road safety.
	The noble Earl will recognise that we cannot tread too heavily in this area without due care. There are human rights issues involved in being able to track vehicles in such a way. He hinted that there ought to be some international dimension to this from the point of view of the car manufacturers. There would certainly be a European perspective on this with regard to the human rights of the individual and the extent to which such devices could be used against the individual, contrary to basic rights. There are problems in this area, which the noble Earl needs to take on board. That is why we are not likely to move with great rapidity to amend this Bill, in any event, in such a controversial area.
	However, there is significant international interest in such devices. In the United States, there has been consultation with vehicle manufacturers concerning the voluntary fitting of a standardised recorder. The European Commission has awarded a research contract to evaluate their potential usefulness. This research will consider the competing technologies, their compatibility with all classes of vehicle and their usefulness in accident reconstruction. It is a two-year programme, so it will be some time before we have the results, but the noble Earl will recognise that there is activity on an international level which may bring some of the benefits that he has identified.
	We are awaiting the publication of the outcome of the US consultation on the standardised approach to this technology, particularly the views of the manufacturing industry. The noble Earl was kind enough to recognise the implications of his amendment for the industry. We intend to contribute to this international study and we are discussing this with European colleagues. We have already opened discussions at official level with the French Government, with a view to a joint programme of vehicle trials to evaluate the potential of accident data recorders.
	This is an area fraught with difficulties; we have many matters to consider. I welcome the chance the noble Earl has given me to look into the future, but he will not mind if I concentrate principally on getting the Report stage of the Bill completed. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister can be satisfied on his last point, because I have already said that I will not press the amendment.
	I thought that in the Bill the alcolock was rather futuristic. It will be interesting to see what happens when that comes into play. I expect that it could have some snags. Was the Minister prejudiced regarding the technology behind the lorry road user charging scheme that has died a death?
	The Minister also mentioned human rights. The same issues arise concerning lorry road user charging schemes and the wider road user charging. I hope that we will be talking about that a lot in the future.
	My amendment was not intended to track; the accident data recorder specifically covered that point. Subsection (4) of the amendment refers to,
	"the five minutes before being subject to any deceleration of more than 0.5g".
	That is a very heavy application of the brakes, about as much as a vehicle can achieve. I am not suggesting in my amendment that we record all vehicle activity; I am suggesting recording the five minutes before an incident occurs.
	I will look very carefully at what the Minister has said about what work is being done at a European level. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]

Viscount Simon: moved Amendment No. 70A:
	After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
	"ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES: PROCEDURE
	(1) Designated members of a relevant police authority shall, for the purposes of this section, have the powers and rights of audience of a Crown Prosecutor in relation to the prosecution of—
	(a) the offences listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Specified Proceedings) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/904);
	(b) specified offences that cease to be specified when a magistrates' court begins to receive evidence in those proceedings where the defendant does not enter a plea.
	(2) A designated member of a relevant police authority shall not have rights of audience when an offence ceases to be specified where the defendant enters a not guilty plea and the case proceeds to trial.
	(3) A member of a relevant police authority shall be designated for the purposes of this section if that member is a recognised designated court presentation officer employed for that purpose."

Viscount Simon: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend the Minister did not like the wording of my amendment regarding police rights of audience in certain traffic offences. This amendment seeks to address those imperfections.
	The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Specified Proceedings) Order 1999, (SI 1999/904) specifies certain low level road traffic offences. The 1985 Act places the duty on the CPS, under statute, to take over the conduct in all criminal proceedings other than specified proceedings. Currently, therefore, the police have conduct of all specified proceedings unless these proceedings become de-specified. An offence will only become de-specified when the court begins to hear the evidence presented.
	This happens in the following cases. First, where the court starts to hear the evidence in the event of the defendant pleading not guilty and the case proceeds to trial; and secondly, where the court starts to hear the evidence in the event of the defendant not entering a plea of any description. In these cases the court hears the evidence by way of statements read out either by the CPS lawyers or CPS staff members—who are not lawyers but designated case workers.
	I am sure that my noble friend would like to learn that the police have recruited a central resource pool of trained and experienced dedicated court presentation officers and it is hoped that these people will be given the same rights of audience as provided to the CPS non-legal staff under Section 7A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The cases where this would take place would be those non-contested, lower level road traffic offences as listed in the Specified Proceedings Order.
	Safety camera offences and those subject to fixed penalty notices are a couple of areas of concern, where people might go scot-free if this change were to be rejected. It is therefore necessary for these court presenters to acquire those rights, as the police are seeking the use of more court space to optimise prosecution ability. The CPS, in turn, is questioning its role in the prosecution of these cases and the police are only able to present cases where there have been confirmed guilty pleas. In these cases the police present cases by means of reading out the statement of facts and not the statements themselves, which would require the CPS. The CPS would benefit from assistance in matters of non-contested cases with no plea entered at all in that as many as possible would be proved in absence at the first hearing by using these specialised dedicated court presenters.
	To summarise, this would free the CPS for more serious roads policing cases in the knowledge that there are people, duly qualified by appropriate training, who can work effectively in minor cases. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has said and I declare my interest as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority. The Crown Prosecution Service is already burdened with more work than it can do so that—certainly in the courts in the area to which I go—cases are being presented by "journeymen lawyers", who are not members of the CPS, but people that the CPS buys in to do the work and they are often not as expert in matters as they might be. They are certainly not as expert in many matters which the police officers—dealing in particular with traffic offences as we are discussing here—would be expert in.
	In their haste to pass the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the other reforms that the Government brought to bear on the criminal justice system, there were good reasons for taking away from the police the presentation of certain facts before the court. But where the matters are technical, and particularly in the circumstances which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, outlined, there is a strong case for allowing the police to present the case rather than—as is the system now—writing down the evidence for the CPS lawyer to read out. It is a convoluted system which is not in the interests of either the economy or justice.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for moving this amendment. While I continue to applaud the good intentions behind this amendment, which has changed significantly since it was first introduced by the noble Viscount, the Government remain of the view that any individual exercising a right of audience before a magistrate should be required to demonstrate his competence to do so.
	The proposed amendment would allow a police authority to designate certain members of that authority to have the same powers as a crown prosecutor, and an automatic right of audience in a number of road traffic cases. Subsection (3) of the amendment does not make it clear as to who would be the designated member of the police authority. I imagine that it is intended that the police authority would only designate police officers but that is not clear.
	As noble Lords will know, a police authority is an independent body that holds the local police force to account on behalf of the people who live and work in that area. Most police authorities have 17 members made up of nine local councillors, five independent members and three magistrates. I am not convinced that any of these individual members would be best placed to act in the capacity of a prosecutor in road traffic cases.
	As my noble friend is aware, judges have discretion to allow police officers to appear in court before them. If the road traffic case were straightforward, I expect that the judge would choose to exercise that discretion. We believe that this mechanism is more preferable than the creation of an automatic right that is not subject to any scrutiny or oversight. Such powers, given to those who are not trained or qualified in prosecuting may actually create delay or damage the case, thus potentially undermining confidence in the justice system. If this were to be the case, this amendment does not allow for any mechanism by which to remove those powers and rights from the designated individual, thus exacerbating the difficulties. For these reasons, and while thanking my noble friend for his persistence and for the excellent intentions in this amendment, I hope that he will withdraw it.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. I will study what she says and I strongly suspect that the police, who have instigated this, will come back at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
	Schedule 6 [Repeals and revocations]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Page 114, line 4, leave out "entry relating to section 98A(7)" and insert "entries relating to sections 98A(7) and 99(5)"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 72 and speak to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. They are technical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendments Nos. 73 to 74:
	Page 52, line 38, at end insert—
	"(3A) Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (inserted by section (Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving)) has effect only in relation to driving occurring after the coming into force of that section; and section 3ZB of that Act (inserted by section (Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers)) has effect only in relation to driving occurring after the coming into force of that section.
	(3B) In relation to an offence under section 2B or 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the references in column 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) relating to offences under those sections have effect with the omission of the words "12 months (in England and Wales) or" and "(in Scotland)"."
	Page 53, line 19, at end insert "but section 44(6) has effect only in relation to offences committed on or after that day."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

Read a third time.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"POWERS OF COURT
	In section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (powers of court in certain family proceedings), in subsection (1) omit "family"."

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 1. Your Lordships will recall that at Report we moved another amendment about Section 37 powers, which are the vehicle in the Children Act 1989 by which children in private law are brought into public law when there is concern about possible harm to them, and the protection system then rolls into action. We asked for guidance to be published to ensure robust and consistent application of those powers in the family courts.
	The Government assured us that the courts were operating these powers well, and we now accept that. However, during our research on the matter, another element came to light. There are situations in which judges in other kinds of proceedings—not family cases but criminal proceedings—uncover situations in which children are in danger, and they believe that they do not have the powers to invoke Section 37 simply because they are not hearing a family case. I call to mind one case described to me by a district judge, who sits both in family cases and in other kinds of proceedings, in which a father was up on a charge relating to drugs. It emerged that both parents were chaotic drug users and had a young child who was being appallingly neglected. The local authority did not even have the child on its "at risk" register, and the judge wanted to act immediately to protect the child. If she had had Section 37 powers, she could have invoked them right away and the child's situation would have been properly assessed as a matter of urgency. However, she believed that she did not have such powers.
	Amendment No. 1, by the simple device of removing the word "family" from Section 37, makes the same powers available to courts in all cases in which a child protection issue emerges during any court proceedings. That strikes me as sensible; naturally, you would expect judges to operate the powers in the same sort of way as they are operated—successfully, according to the Government—in the family courts. Will the Government either accept the amendment or guarantee to go away and look at how judges in other proceedings can use existing powers to do the same thing and, if the latter, ensure that a practice note is issued to ensure that they know what powers they have? If the Government believe that judges already have the power, clearly some of them do not know it, so a practice note is appropriate in that case, too. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I give cautious support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The amendment seems eminently sensible. Removing the word "family" may have impacts elsewhere, but it seems sensible, and I give it my support.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. I should say straight away that we feel that the amendment raises what may be a point of substance; it is one that we wish to reflect on further, with a view either to introducing an amendment in the other place or issuing a practice note as she suggested.
	The intention of Section 37 of the 1989 Act is to enable courts, in particular in the process of private law family proceedings, to ask the relevant local authority to undertake within eight weeks an assessment of the welfare of a child who is the subject of proceedings with a view to ascertaining his or her needs and determining whether the authority considers that it should initiate care proceedings. The issue is whether the powers under Section 37 could be used in other types of proceedings. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness would extend the process set out in the 1989 Act, in respect of family proceedings, to other types of court proceedings.
	The question raised by the noble Baroness is whether that would assist the cause of child protection. In considering the noble Baroness's amendment, we have asked ourselves precisely that question. The answer is that it may do so, and we are therefore prepared to consider very seriously an amendment to extend the scope of proceedings covered by Section 37. The implications need careful consideration. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, for her cautious support. I am grateful to the Government for saying that they will go away and look at this matter, but it is a pity that we cannot sort it out in your Lordships' House. However, that may be due to the fact that today's proceedings have been brought forward to fill a gap in business, which means that we have all been rushing around in the past five days to try to sort ourselves out. But I am most reassured by the Minister's reassurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"MEDIATION
	After section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (orders with respect to children in family proceedings), insert—
	"8A MEDIATION
	Applications for a contact order under section 8 must be stayed, unless by order of the court, until the applicant has attended a meeting with a mediator and the mediator has certified that mediation is not suitable to resolve the issue which is the subject of the application.""

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, at earlier stages of the Bill we moved a number of amendments aimed at encouraging mediation as we believe that, if a couple can be convinced that mediation may help them, and if they then go through mediation with a well qualified mediator, we will be able to keep a lot more families out of the courts. What is more, an arrangement that has been laid down by agreement is much more likely to be adhered to by both parties and therefore there will be less need for all the new sanctions the Government are introducing in Clause 1.
	In response to our Amendment No. 15 at Report stage, the Government told us that it would fall foul of the Human Rights Act because it limited access to justice. Noble Lords will remember that it said that parents must meet with a mediator to have the benefits of mediation explained to them before they could apply to the court for a contact order. Our purpose in having this condition pre-application to the courts was, first of all, to introduce the mediation idea early, but also to do it before one person became the litigant and the other the respondent. Once a woman metamorphoses into a litigant and her former husband or partner becomes the respondent, or vice versa, the whole atmosphere changes and becomes much more confrontational. We had hoped to avoid that.
	We also hoped to bring more equality into the system since Section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 says that couples who are publicly funded have to undergo such a meeting before they can apply to the court. Noble Lords should note that that measure does not apply to those who are self-funded or who are litigants in person. It seems there is one law for the rich, who can afford the cost of their own litigation, and another for the poor, who have to apply for legal aid and have no access to justice without it. I would suggest therefore that if our amendment falls foul of the human rights legislation, then so does Section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. I call upon the Minister to explain to the House why it does not. Besides, our earlier amendment would have only delayed access to the courts by a few days and would not impede it altogether.
	Although we would really prefer our previous amendment, in an effort to be helpful and propose something that certainly would not fall foul of human rights legislation we have proposed this amendment, which says that application must be stayed until a meeting with a mediator has taken place and the mediator has confirmed that going ahead with mediation would not be fruitful. Staying the hearing of an application until some event or other has happened is not unusual. It is done all the time and I see no reason why it should not be done in this case. In the interests of getting more couples into mediation and in the interests of ironing out the inequality in the current law, I do hope the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I rise simply to seek clarification in relation to some of the questions that the noble Baroness's amendment has raised. In particular, I am concerned that there seems to be very unequal access to justice if there is one law for one group of litigants and another for others. If we are focusing on the needs of children, as this Bill is supposed to focus, and if CAFCASS is supposed to focus on the needs of children, presumably the access to that kind of mediation should be equal between them. So I seek clarification on that.
	I also thought that we had firmly said in the course of our discussions that the first, almost compulsory, meeting, would concern unequal access. This also links to a great deal of the work that CAFCASS is undergoing with regard to conflict resolution. Presumably, there will be equal access to the kind of conflict resolution that happens at the early stages. I understand exactly what the noble Baroness wants to achieve and would be grateful for clarification from the Minister.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it will not have been recorded in Hansard, but my noble friend Lord Adonis and I can hear the noble Baroness's voice, and know that she probably ought to be in bed with a rather large hot whisky. I am extraordinarily grateful, because it is a sign of her commitment to children, and to the passage of this Bill, that she is with us this evening. I want to put that on the record, because I am well aware of the position. I will therefore try to be as helpful in return as the noble Baroness has been with my noble friend and me in all our discussions during the passage of the Bill.
	I completely agree with the principle behind the amendment. I understand that we should offer all parties the strongest possible encouragement for mediation. As the noble Baroness knows, I am the Minister responsible for mediation within my own department, so I could not agree more with the sentiment. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, have raised the discrepancy—if I might call it that—between what happens in publicly and privately funded cases. I recognise that there is a discrepancy, and that we need to look further at this, as well as at the issue of those who choose to be unrepresented, who are a significant group in this whole process.
	It will not surprise either noble Baroness to learn that we do not think legislation is necessarily the way to address this point. We do not want to ensure that everyone always attends a meeting; there will be good reasons why the courts may decide that is inappropriate. It may be the history of the case, the particular circumstances or the individuals involved. Noble Lords will know how important it is for the courts to have the discretion to address this matter.
	When someone seeks public funding, they are in theory able to access a court without public funding, so we are not falling foul of Article 6 of the ECHR. I accept, however, that individuals who have public funding do not necessarily in practice have the funds to be able to afford to do so in their own right. The issue of a level playing field is something we need to consider.
	I am not sure I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about how the atmosphere changes at the point of court. I wonder if she would agree that the atmosphere changes at the point at which you decide to go to court. There is a process where people get to the moment of deciding it is the only way through. It may be cathartic in those circumstances, but it is most likely to be the point of conflict where there is nothing else to be done. I do not suggest that the noble Baroness is wrong at all, but the point might be slightly earlier in the process, and does not affect the point she raises—indeed, it may strengthen it.
	This may sound like a rather bureaucratic solution to a problem of policy, but we want to look at the forms people fill in. Noble Lords will know that before people come into court, they fill in a form. We are interested in altering that form to say something like, "We want you to say whether you have met a mediator to discuss mediation, or indeed have gone on to mediation"—and, perhaps more importantly, "If not, why not?". The courts could be allowed, in the way they look at the evidence before them about what would be best for these families and circumstances, to consider the answers that have been given and take them into account. In other words, if a court is not satisfied with the answers, the Bill gives it the power to direct that person to attend an initial meeting with a mediator.
	We think the process of strengthening what people have to give by way of information beforehand, together with ensuring that the courts understand that they have this power and that this might be a piece of evidence to put before them in order to make that decision, is probably a better route, only because we think there will be circumstances where the court should not order that someone attend a meeting on mediation.
	Building on what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, I want to say that the work CAFCASS is doing, which is part of the family programme published in January by the President of the Family Division that deals with the way we manage cases, includes referral to in-court conciliation provided by CAFCASS. We have just received, and will shortly be publishing, new research on the effect of in-court conciliation, which CAFCASS intends should be available in all cases—except, as noble Lords will understand, those that involve safety issues. We think that is an important part of this whole process, and I hope it partly addresses the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	I can tell noble Lords that research so far suggests that in-court conciliation is highly effective, with over 70 per cent of those taking part reaching settlement. If we are able to develop that and roll it out across the country, which is our ambition along with our colleagues in CAFCASS, that will be an additional part of the process to achieve what I know is very dear to the noble Baroness's heart: keeping people out of court if there are ways of dealing with the issues beforehand, for the benefit of the adults and, especially, the children. That is part of the process we think will make a big difference. It is also worth saying that there has been an increase in the proportion of orders overall that are made by consent. Nearly half of the cases—46 per cent—that go to court are now being settled by consent between the parties.
	I take nothing away from what the noble Baroness has said. We need to think about the level playing field. We think that by doing something about the information that goes into the court—the evidence base that the courts make their decisions on—requiring the adults to think about why they have not gone to mediation will help us solve the problems for those people for whom mediation would be a solution. I hope that by doing this, together with the in-court conciliation rolled out through CAFCASS, we will have addressed the noble Baroness's concerns. We will of course keep her informed. On that basis, I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for pressing the same questions I have been pressing. I welcome what she said about putting information onto the form about whether or not the couple have undertaken a meeting about mediation and the court taking that into account. I also welcome what she said about in-court conciliation. Judges will confirm what she said about its effectiveness.
	The noble Baroness said that there are cases where it may not be appropriate for this meeting to take place but I would draw her attention to the fact that my amendment takes that into account by stating,
	"unless by order of the court".
	She also said that she disagrees with me about the point at which the atmosphere changes. She may be right. Our earlier amendment tried to address that but she threw it out. If she had not told us that that amendment fell foul of human rights legislation and it had been carried, we would have had this meeting long before any decision was made to apply to the court. However, it was a very positive answer from the Minister. I am grateful to her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"DEFAULT CONTACT ARRANGEMENTS
	(1) In the case of any child, following the separation of those having parental responsibility for that child, default contact arrangements appropriate for that child shall be deemed to have been agreed between those having parental responsibility for the child unless and until either—
	(a) those with parental responsibility for the child agree any other contact arrangements for the child (with or without the assistance of a mediator or other outside agency); or
	(b) the court otherwise determines having regard to section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (welfare of the child).
	(2) Those having parental responsibility, in making an agreement on contact arrangements, and the court in making any order, shall have regard to the child's right for its views to be heard under article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	(3) If a person having parental responsibility for a child applies for an order which would have the effect of excluding contact between the child and any other such person, the court shall deal with any such application as quickly as reasonably practical, (having regard to the requirements of section 7 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare reports)."

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise for the last time to move this amendment. We come now to the issue of contact, which has not yet been resolved. I therefore apologise that I will have to take a little longer than I would normally wish at Third Reading to explain carefully what we are trying to do in this amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that, immediately on separation, those with parental responsibility for a child will communicate with each other by some means and try to reach an agreement about contact arrangements for their children, and, in doing so, will consult the children themselves and take advice about what is appropriate.
	The communication between the couple need not be face-to-face, especially if there has been any violence. It could be by correspondence or through their solicitors, but it must be done, and soon, so that, no matter how long they wrangle about money, property or other matters, the child will not be deprived in the mean time of its relationship with the non-resident parent while they await their day in court—unless there are concerns about harm, to which I will return in a minute. Your Lordships will know that it often takes a long time for very contentious cases to get into court, by which time the child may have lost its relationship with a non-violent non-resident parent, and the status quo is then regarded as being in the best interests of the child's stability. Before explaining how this would work, perhaps I may say a word about what the amendment would not do.
	The amendment does not in any way fetter the ability of the couple to agree any arrangement they wish that suits them and, more importantly, their children, even one which might seem unreasonable to a third party. It does not fetter the ability of either parent to seek a decision from a court if they cannot agree between themselves. Neither does it fetter in any way the discretion of the court to take into account the particulars of the case and make any judgment it sees fit in the interests of the welfare of the child.
	Your Lordships will note that we have referred in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause to the primacy of the welfare of the child as enshrined in the Children Act 1989. I do not believe that anything in this amendment would interfere with that. If I did, I would not, as an NSPCC ambassador and trustee of UNICEF, be pressing this amendment. I should emphasise, however, that the amendment has not been proposed by either of those or any other organisation. Neither does this amendment force any parent concerned about the safety of the child or her own safety to allow contact until this concern has been properly investigated. If she has such concerns, she will go to the court.
	So how would the amendment work in practice? If a couple split up and go to their solicitor or a CAB or any other family support organisation for advice, they would be told that the first thing they have to focus on are the contact arrangements for their children, that those arrangements have to be appropriate for the child, that they have to consult the child, if he is competent according to Article 12 of the UNCRC, and that they are quite free to agree anything that suits them. They will also be told what are their rights and those of the child if there are any concerns about the safety of the child or either of the parents in a contact situation. That is where subsection (3) of the proposed new clause in our amendment comes in. What they cannot do is just hang on to the child and do nothing about contact. All this they would be told before they got anywhere near a court. It would mean that if there are concerns about safety, or if one or other parent wishes to deny any contact for any other reason, the matter must immediately go before the court, which will hear the case quickly. There needs to be no contact until this has happened.
	Where will the couple find out what is considered to be "appropriate for that child" to guide them in their agreement? They will be given for their consideration and guidance examples of what child welfare experts, courts and other couples have considered to be appropriate for a child of the age of theirs. They may get this from materials currently being prepared for parents by government departments. They may get it from an NGO such as any of the children's organisations which all agree that it is usually in a child's best interests to have a relationship with both of its parents. This information may appear on one of these organisations' websites. If so, I would challenge them to ensure it is absolutely up-front that parents are not obliged to agree to any contact at all if they are afraid for their own safety at the handover point, or that of the child at any time. It is up to those organisations to do that effectively. It is not up to CAFCASS at this point because it is hoped that most of these couples will not go near a court but will sort things out for themselves.
	Your Lordships will note that this amendment has no sanctions as we do not want to criminalise parents, neither is it monitored, any more than the many cases are monitored where parents currently agree between themselves. It is assumed that, of all the cases which do not go to court, the contact arrangements are in the best interests of the child and both parents are satisfied with the level of contact they are achieving. I do not believe that is so at all. There are many cases where children are being deprived of a good relationship through contact with the non-resident parent but that parent is reluctant to go through the trauma of court proceedings, and therefore sadly gives up. This amendment is aimed at those parents to get them to seek advice on what is appropriate for their child and then to do it. I do not believe either that we have effectively addressed this issue so far during the whole of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House; hence this last ditch attempt. In a way, that is the fault of the extreme parents' rights groups whose irresponsible behaviour has ensured that we have no respect for them and which has therefore masked the genuine and serious issue that they raise, and I very much regret that.
	However, this issue will not go away and we on these Benches are trying our best responsibly to look behind that behaviour and do something to address the issue in a way which ensures the safety of the child and the primacy of every other aspect of its welfare. It has not been easy. In fact everything we have suggested has been rejected in the interests of protecting those few children who are at risk. We have struggled properly to address the matter of contact throughout the passage of the Bill in a way which is more positive than the sanctions in Clause 1, so far without success, but we are not giving up yet. I believe that in Amendment No. 3 we are getting close to what needs to be done.
	It may be that legislation is not the most appropriate way of dealing with this, but this legislation is the only opportunity opposition parties feel they have to put pressure on the Government on this matter. The Bill with its new sanctions does not put everything right about child contact, far from it. Something more needs to be done. I look forward to hearing how the Minister intends to pick up the important issues this amendment highlights and take them forward. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I need to explain to the House and, indeed, to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, why, when the Conservative Benches supported an amendment which was probably more prescriptive, we are not supporting this one. The amendment is wholly admirable and I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness. In a way this matter is rather like the parenting time plans that we tried to introduce. We discussed at what stage one should "capture" parents, how they are to know what is expected, and what the courts might do.
	However, I am concerned about the matter as we sometimes come at it from different angles. The Government have said that every case is different, but we have said that there are similarities between cases. We still believe that there are similarities and that guidelines can be drawn up along the lines explained by the noble Baroness that can say to parents, "This is what will happen when you split up if you cannot resolve the issues yourselves". However, every case is then different and you have to sit down with people who can put that provision into force and discuss those cases. Therefore, although I absolutely agree with what the noble Baroness is trying to do, I do not think that the amendment would achieve it.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness because now I understand what she is trying to get at. When I read the amendment, I found it very difficult indeed to follow where she was going. I am grateful that CAFCASS does not come into this at all. This is the 90 per cent of families that we leave alone to get on with their lives, imperfect as those solutions often are. We need to make sure that advice, education and help are in the public domain at those most difficult points when people are in need.
	The reason why I am against prescription and everyone having to make the decision at that point—which is what I understand her to be saying although I may still have it wrong—is that, having talked to parents and to many children on the lines of Childline, I know that the situation changes over a period for everyone involved. It particularly changes for the children, who are slowly coming to terms with things that they did not understand at all at the beginning and do not understand very much by the time that they have to make decisions, and they often change that decision in the light of what they hear. To get those agreements written down or agreed in stone at an early stage is extraordinarily difficult.
	Of course we all think that parents should make those decisions, we all think that they should consult their children, and we all think that when circumstances change they should make sure that there is clarity in the agreement that they have. My experience is that human life, particularly human life in conflict, simply is not like that. We need to make sure that people have as much help as possible that they can choose to access, because it worries me that in a free society we appear to be suggesting that families in trouble have to do certain things that other families do not have to agree to. Many families who stick together are sometimes just as dysfunctional—and could do with a few agreements—as those who separate. I find the amendment difficult to support, but it may be that I do not understand it.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I, too, find the amendment difficult to support. I, too, sympathise with the very bad cold suffered by the noble Baroness—she has done valiantly to move the amendment. She said that the amendment would not fetter the ability of parents to reach agreement. My concern is that it actually pushes people into forms of agreement when they are at a point where they can reach agreement themselves. The danger is that we assume that there is one kind of agreement that is right for the child. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, we have to understand that people reach different kinds of agreement that work for them. That is the key. Far be it from any of us to put more barriers to people in very difficult situations reaching agreement without any intervention at all.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would be despondent if the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Morris, were to leave the Bill feeling that all their ideas have been rejected and that the Government have not taken on board the genuine commitment of noble Lords opposite to trying to deal with some of the difficult issues that the Bill raises.
	Noble Lords will know that we began, certainly on the issues that I have been involved in, by trying to support the courts to ensure that people were not able to say, "Regardless of the court's decision, actually we are not prepared to make sure that the court decision is acted on", and give the court some sanctions. The answers to many of the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Morris, lie beyond legislation. But I would not wish any noble Lord reading an account of our deliberations or any noble Lord present to feel that the Government had not listened or indeed that the noble Baroness had not achieved some of her objectives.
	The way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has approached this has enabled me as a Minister to understand the issues more fully and to try to find solutions. They might not be the solutions that the noble Baroness would want, and she knows well that I have consulted widely to address those issues and I have taken advice where I felt it appropriate. I have not been able to accept the amendments, but I am seeking to address the concerns that the noble Baroness raised. I would not want her to go away this evening thinking that she has not been successful, because we will find ourselves better placed as a consequence of the amendments proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Morris.
	The questions that have been raised are very important. How do we make sure that parents get the best possible information and the best possible guidance, advice and support long before they get to court that tells them about the kind of ways in which they could deal with the issues for their children? The noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Howarth, with their aeons of experience on these issues, know that it is difficult. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, knows that it is difficult to address all the issues around the age of a child. Does the child live near to dad or near to mum? Does the child play hockey on a Wednesday or football on a Thursday? Does the child have friends that it wants to see? Never mind the fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, that the lives of children change constantly and they want to have fluctuating, variable arrangements that work well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, knows from our discussions yesterday, with the previous draft of the amendment we were concerned that it would be left to civil servants—love them as I do—to decide what kind of arrangements might work. That does not work for me and I think that it would be a job too far for them to try to achieve that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has been successful in this area in that we have committed ourselves to ensuring that the information that we give parents is better formulated so that people know what has worked for other parents—that is a critical element—and what might be appropriate for the child, bearing in mind the arrangements that are in place. I have no difficulty with that, and it is why the pilot parenting plans are being redrafted by experts from outside the department in the voluntary sector who really understand these issues. That will enable us to get a better sense of the situation and to give that information to parents, who often struggle because they may not communicate well with each other about what works best for their child. I am very keen that we do that as well as we can.
	We want to ensure that we offer parents as much guidance and support as we possibly can. As the noble Baroness may know, we are looking to gain a better picture of what happens with the people involved in contact disputes, both in and out of the courts. That has become a priority for us as a result of the way in which both opposition parties have pushed us to think more carefully about these issues.
	I know, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is, and always has been, particularly concerned, through reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to ensure that the child's voice is heard. Of course, ordinary parents do not even know that the convention exists. I think that we live in a slightly rarefied world, but it is an important issue. I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Pitkeathley, are particularly keen on that subject in the work done within CAFCASS. How do we ensure that the child's voice is heard? It is heard through their parents where that works well, through the work of CAFCASS and, where appropriate, through representation by a guardian or a solicitor under Rule 9.5 of the family proceedings rules. But the noble Baroness is right that we cannot be complacent about this. We have commissioned research by Cardiff University to look at whether that rule is being used effectively and whether it is serving children well. The research also involves asking children what they feel about being represented. I hope to be able to inform the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Walmsley, of the results of that research very shortly.
	We want to take very seriously the issues raised by the noble Baroness. I do not need to go through in detail why, in my view, the amendment does not work. It does not work because I cannot work out how we would implement her proposal in a way that made sense. As the noble Baroness knows, I am concerned about the relationship between the state and parents. However imperfect the family, it is important that we let the family get on, and it is critical that we improve the support that we offer people.
	I agree with the noble Baroness about the extremists. But I also say to her that throughout this process many of the groups—particularly the fathers' groups—have greatly helped us to understand the issues that are of concern to them. In a sense, it was their work and that of the courts that led us to introduce the Bill as a means of dealing with some of their concerns.
	I end by supporting what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said. The problem is that every case is different and cases have lots of similarities. We have sought to recognise that, with support, guidance, help and advice, families must be allowed to determine the arrangements that work for the circumstances of the child and the adults, and that is the approach of the courts. They say, "Of course every case is different. We start with an open mind but we'll find lots of similarities with other cases as we go through". So it is important to offer guidance and support while recognising that a child's life and a family life may be different. Therefore, we would find it very difficult to do what the noble Baroness wants.
	However, I would not want any noble Lord who listens to this debate, or reads the record of it, to be under any illusion that we have not understood the principal point that the noble Baroness is making. We intend to act on it not through the legislation, for the reasons that I have given, but by making absolutely sure that we improve the quality of the advice and support. We shall do so not just through government but through the support of the voluntary sector, advice organisations, solicitors and barristers. That will enable better decisions to be made by families in supporting their children as effectively as they can. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that there is no prescription at all in the amendment and I challenge her to show me where in the amendment there is. It is only about asking parents to choose to access advice from organisations such as her own or from anywhere they like. We are not asking for that advice to come from any one place; nor do I believe that the Minister's comment about changing the relationship between the family and the state applies. Parents can get their advice from anywhere; it does not have to be from materials prepared by the Government.
	Through this amendment we are trying to do something very simple: we are asking parents to accept that the first thing they must do is to focus on the child. The amendment is wide enough to enable them to do it in any way they like, getting advice from any legitimate source and coming to an agreement that suits them. There is absolutely no prescription in it at all. I welcome what the Minister has said about improving the quality of advice that comes from government departments. I accept that but there is nothing that tells parents, "You must look at it". There is nothing in the amendment that forces them to do anything about it either, but it would be nice if there were something that said to parents, "You must look at this advice, you must focus on your child's interest and you must make some sensible contact arrangements with the non-resident parent, unless there is a safety reason for not doing so". That is what I am getting at. Clearly I am getting nowhere tonight, but I am grateful for the Minister's comments and I look forward to receiving the information on the research that she mentioned earlier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 [Contact activity directions and conditions]:

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Leave out Clause 1.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, we are nearing the conclusion of what has been a spirited, thoroughly argued, but above all principled debate. From the beginning, our objection to the Bill has been more about what it leaves out than what it attempts to achieve. To all intents and purposes, as I said in Grand Committee, it is all stick and no carrot. Also in Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe, who cannot be in his place this evening due to an important family engagement, said:
	"There is a very simple truth associated with contact disputes. It is that if both parties to the dispute are content with the amount of contact that they have with the child, there is no longer any dispute".—[Official Report, 12/10/05; col. GC 106.]
	With the publication of the Green Paper and the Government's admission that things were not working as well as they could, hopes were raised that measures would be contained in the Bill to help to facilitate better contact.
	Over the passage of this Bill, we have sought to highlight the problems that many parents face and to put forward solutions. With our two main amendments, we failed to persuade the Government on a presumption of co-parenting and reasonable contact, although I was somewhat amused when the day after Report stage, during the Committee stage of the Identity Cards Bill, I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, say to my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate:
	"I know, as does the noble and learned Lord, that a presumption is . . . only a presumption".—[Official Report, 16/11/05; col. 1138.]
	I wish that had been said the day before.
	Those two amendments were a large part of our desire to strengthen Clause 1. I know that those arguments are lost. However, I want to mention something that the Minister said during Report stage:
	"As the Committee will know, the Florida situation is based on parents' rights and on children's welfare".—[Official Report, 14/11/05; col. 873.]
	That is the approach that they have taken and it is for them to decide what they want to do.
	The 1982 Florida statute 61.13 is based on the rights of the child and the duty of parents to have regard to those same rights. It is based on the assumption that in the absence of good reason to the contrary, children from broken homes need both parents in their lives. The statute also assumes that the child has, again in the absence of good reason to the contrary, a presumptive right to frequent and continuing contact with both parents. Acts of that type are to be found in more than 20 US states.
	Part of the objection to our early amendments was that they would place children in the way of harm. We have always asserted that a robust safety net must be in place. However, as the Minister is aware from a letter that she received from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which he copied to us—he also cannot be in his place tonight—Judge John Lenderman of Florida is surprised that reasonable contact will put children at greater risk—or is thought to put children at greater risk—of child abuse or domestic violence. As he says, that,
	"almost assumes child abuse or domestic violence in the case of separating parents".
	I am sure that that is not what anybody is saying, but that is what comes across.
	During Report stage, there was much media attention on the issue of safety. We take the issue of safety very seriously and have always said that where the safety of a child is not an issue, the best parent for a child is both parents. But we have grave concerns with some of the statistics used on safety and I urge the Government to take a robust look at the issue.
	During our discussions, the Minister said that one of the difficulties of legislating is finding the words to put on paper. She also acknowledged that more could perhaps have been done to explain what is happening outside the Bill. She has alluded to some of that tonight, but in order to give her the opportunity to provide the House with the full picture, I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the spirit in which she moved the amendment. As I have already indicated to her and to the House, I understand her desire to try to address an important issue around contact. I am not going to go into the details of why, in our legal system, I have difficulty with accepting the presumption in question. I take nothing away from the work that is going on in Florida. Indeed, I had a copy of the letter sent to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We are missing our noble Lords this evening! We wish them well, and I know that they are suitably engaged on other important tasks, particularly on family commitments, which are pertinent this evening.
	Having consulted as widely as I could, I was unable to accept the amendment, but that does not mean that I do not understand the issue that lies beneath it. I recognise the concern at the heart of many of the issues; that is, those parents, often non-resident fathers, who do not get a fair deal. I repeat the commitment that I gave to the noble Baroness during the previous stage of the Bill: I intend to commission new research to establish a proper evidence base. I will go further: if the research recognises the problem that noble Lords have raised with me anecdotally, I will take action to address it. I will come back to noble Lords who have participated in the Bill to demonstrate that I recognise that there is an issue and to say what action will be taken. I am at one with noble Lords in recognising the critical importance of establishing the evidence base.
	I also accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about statistics and information around questions of safety. Noble Lords will know from the amendments that I was very pleased to accept in previous stages that we are concerned that issues of safety are addressed properly within the court system. Noble Lords will know from the work done by my noble friend Lady Scotland and her ministerial team, of which I am fortunate to be a member, on domestic violence that we are concerned to ensure that cases where children are at risk and where there are issues of domestic violence that could affect contact are addressed properly and promptly by the courts. We have taken steps to do that, and we will review them. But I accept that sometimes, in order to make a case, statistics are wheeled out in a way that does not recognise that they have an impact on the generality of cases where violence and safety are not an issue. In government, and in this House, we have to be cautious not to use statistics inappropriately. I am proud that we do not do so in your Lordships' House. I accept the point that underpins what the noble Baroness said.
	We understand the issues being raised. We want to make sure that we do the work necessary to support those parents—particularly fathers, in this context—who feel that they do not get the best deal. We will do the research with the courts and will come back to noble Lords on it.
	We also want to make sure that we provide parents with better information and advice about their options at the earliest possible stage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said in our previous discussions, we will focus on children to make sure that parents think about what is in their best interests and we recognise the general, although not universal, desire of parents to love and support their children to adulthood and beyond.
	We want to do this, in part, by working closely with colleagues in the voluntary sector who are looking at the way in which we might develop new provision. As noble Lords will know, we have set aside £7.5 million over the next two years to support child contact services, which we think is an important contribution to this work. We want to make sure that, in all the work we do before the court process and beyond, we are able to support parents better.
	Perhaps I may briefly outline the work we are doing. It is about better information services; it is about better information through solicitors; it is about making sure that when people get to court they have other options than appearing before a judge in a court process; it is about ensuring that parents recognise that if a court makes an order, it is a real order and is to be followed because it is in the best interests of the child; it is about the sanctions in this Bill that might be appropriate beyond that; it is about the role of CAFCASS in supporting families to ensure those contact orders are followed through; it is about providing support for parents in the conflicts that they may feel; it is about looking at the research to ensure that the courts are operating this system in the way we would wish them to do, and to act upon that; and it is about making sure that in our work with contact centres—particularly the work my noble friend Lord Adonis is doing in the contact centres—we are supporting those organisations in providing that support.
	What I am trying to suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is that while I recognise that I have not fulfilled what she specifically would want through legislation, I do accept the principle of trying to ensure that children have a good strong relationship with both parents, where it is safe to do so. We want to offer parents the best possible advice and support in what is often a very difficult and traumatic time for them, to enable them and their children to have the best possible relationship for the future. All I would say to the noble Baroness is that I wish I could have done this through legislation in a way that would have achieved what she wanted. The problem is that it would have achieved something different and would have caused us some difficulty in what has been a well established and well loved principle of the paramountcy of the child's interests. It does not mean that I do not accept there is work to be done. I hope in what I have said that I have been able to outline the work that we intend to do. I will of course commit to keeping the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, informed as this work progresses and ensure that, should our research identify action that we need to take, I inform noble Lords of that action and, indeed, take it. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I think all Members of the House will agree with me when I say how greatly we all appreciate how the noble Baroness always listens to worried criticisms and really investigates the case that is being made. I have felt very much indebted to her in the past and I think we all do tonight for the way she always deals with us in this House.
	I welcome the opportunity to ask one short question, which came to my mind when I first read the Bill and the Explanatory Notes. I refer to contact with grandparents. This has been a very real issue in many cases. I could not help wondering, because all the way through we have been talking about parents, as do the Explanatory Notes, whether anything in front of us is intended to affect the right of grandparents to have access to their grandchildren?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness is extremely kind in her remarks about my work. It is always a delight to work with the noble Baroness. In our previous discussions we talked about grandparents. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the issue. Grandparents often provide the linchpin between parents in dispute. I recognise and value very much the work that so many grandparents do, and I have been very fortunate to listen to grandparents describing that. They of course can make application to the court, and they will be listened to, about their rights to have access to their grandchildren—again always on the basis of the child's interests being paramount and in the vast majority of cases it would be in their interests to see their grandparents.
	I hope the noble Baroness will look back on some of the debates we have had. I completely agree with her that grandparents play a vital role, and we are very keen to ensure that they have the Government's support in being able to work with their grandchildren. I apologise only that I did not make that important point clearer in my final remarks.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend said. She has been a passionate advocate for grandparents throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank the Minister for her customary detailed and thoughtful reply, and I am most grateful for the way in which she has listened. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, have gone to a great deal of trouble to keep us informed and for that I thank them. Although I am not supposed to, I also thank the Bill team. I am pleased that the Minister is commissioning research on contact and look forward to reading the conclusions. That will be very interesting. I do not doubt for one moment her commitment to ensuring that parents have a good, strong relationship with their children and for accepting that work needs to be done.
	In my Second Reading speech I said that the current arrangements risk the downgrading of the family and, above all, of fatherhood, and that we allow that at peril to future generations. Those are still my sentiments. Notwithstanding what the Government are doing, we still feel strongly that the best way to resolve disputes between warring parents and to protect the right of the child to a proper relationship with both parents is through presumption of co-parenting, reasonable contact, early intervention, mandatory dispute resolution and mediation and parenting time plans. However, I will not test the opinion of the House and I am sure that all this will be picked up in conversation when the Bill goes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Barker: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 17, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 85 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (restriction on taking children out), in subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) the High Court has given leave for the child to leave the United Kingdom to be placed with the prospective adopters pending the issue of an application under section 84,""

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I shall take just a little time to deal with some issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when we discussed the matter at Report. He raised some important questions that I would like to address before the Bill finally leaves this House. The restrictions in adoption legislation on taking children abroad for the purposes of adoption are there to protect and provide safeguards. The point of trying to amend those provisions is not to reduce those safeguards but to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility so that a placement that is deemed to be in the best interest of the child is possible.
	Previously, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked what would happen if the placement did not work out—how would we in the United Kingdom know that things were not working well? There are two possible responses to that. The first is that if the country in which the adoption was being completed was a convention country, a country that is party to the 1993 Hague Convention, there would be a central authority and that central authority would be in contact with the central authority here. That central authority could arrange another placement in that country, if that were appropriate, or return the child to this country, or its country of origin. The convention also provides that the views of the child must be taken into account and his or her consent be obtained before any new placement where that is appropriate.
	If the country were not a convention country, it would be more problematic. Under the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act, if they are unamended, the child will be subject to an order under Section 84, giving the prospective adopters parental responsibility. Under English law, no one else would have parental responsibility. If the adoption had been arranged by an adoption agency—most probably, a local authority—and the adopters requested it, the local authority concerned would probably be willing to receive a child back.
	It may be possible to consider enabling the child to leave the country with the prospective adopters while subject to a placement order. That would mean that the local authority would share parental responsibility with the adopters and would have a continuing responsibility for the child. There may be some difficulties in that, but it is possible that that system could work to the child's advantage. I think that I am right in saying that, since 1991, the courts have sanctioned children leaving the country under care orders. Those are two possible ways of ensuring that, when a child is in another country, oversight of the arrangements continues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about relatives. We noted that since the passage of the 2002 Act the position of relatives had changed and that it might be possible to make changes here. It depends on what definition of "relative" the Government come up with. It would have to be sufficiently wide to allow people who have adopted one of a sibling group and who are the prospective adopters of another one of that group to be considered parents. I am not sure whether they would be under the current definition.
	It is incumbent on me to say why the provision is important and worth banging on about at this late hour. There are two reasons. First, anyone who has read about the history of inter-country adoption will know that what happened in the last century to children who went abroad from this country was perhaps one of the most shameful acts of social policy in which the country has ever been involved. Nobody on these Benches has any wish to replicate any of that or to set up legal loopholes. But, at times, people become, quite rightly, extremely emotional and perhaps sometimes unreasonable about inter-country adoption, whether to or from this country. If the law does not work in the best interests of children, people will be tempted to try to circumvent it. That is why it is important that we consider allowing flexibility, even in cases that have been to court and have been assessed.
	When we last discussed the issue, the Minister asked me how prevalent such cases are. Only a few children are affected; the number is still very small but I have reason to believe that it is growing. It is therefore worth taking time to see whether the law can be made to work in their best interests. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, speaks with passion on this subject. The amendment gives the courts the flexibility to make an order that best meets the needs of the child. Although our names are not attached to this amendment, we have supported the noble Baroness throughout the passage of the Bill and continue to do so.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, before coming into the House, my noble friend Lady Ashton gave me a stern lecture that apparently it is now outside the normal practice of the House to end by thanking noble Lords for how they have conducted themselves during debates. I will not do that but briefly thank them for the great forbearance they have shown me on the first Bill that I have taken through and for the very good-natured way in which debates have been conducted, even on very difficult issues—none was more difficult than arrangements for the protection of children after relationships have broken down. The Government are very grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for the care and attention that they have taken in raising those matters with us.
	It seems to have fallen to the noble Baroness and me to end the proceedings in Committee, on Report and now at Third Reading by discussing the difficult and important issue of children adopted from the UK. I am glad that the noble Baroness has now met my honourable friend Maria Eagle, the Minister responsible for this policy area, and that they had a very fruitful discussion. My honourable friend has indicated to the noble Baroness that we will look further at this issue with a view to seeing whether it is possible for the Government to introduce on Report amendments that would deal with the points that she has raised about the need for suitable flexibility to deal in particular with cases relating to relations of children proposed for adoption where a less bureaucratic procedure would be in the best interests of the children concerned, and cases that would not cause unnecessary disruption to the family life of the child and the relative—where it is a relative seeking to adopt them—and that would be consistent with the child safety concerns paramount in making provisions in this area.
	As the noble Baroness said, the issues are complex. I will not rehearse them all. However, before we can move further we need to satisfy ourselves that we have ironed out the difficulties, particularly as regards security—even where relatives are the adopters—in the country where the adoption is being undertaken and should arrangements break down. The noble Baroness raised the convention and the obligations that it places on the countries that are signatories to it. Her points are well taken. It may be that there are adequate safeguards in those countries.
	However, we should not lightly expose children to the risk of disruption that might be caused if arrangements do not work out in the country to which they are being taken. I am told that we are aware of children being sent back on their own after breakdowns have occurred. Situations like that are very grave and serious for the children concerned. We need to be sure that even where relatives are involved, and therefore reasonably strong securities can be given for the well being of the child, there are nevertheless robust arrangements for overseeing a trial period in the country to which they are to go, and for dealing with a situation if a breakdown occurs and full adoption and residence does not follow.
	The noble Baroness has raised an issue which we are prepared to look at further. I hope that we are able to meet her legitimate concerns about the need to ensure flexibility and the best interests of the children concerned. But we believe that there are still some issues that need to be ironed out. We will undertake further consultations, including with the noble Baroness, with a view to seeing whether we can move on this issue in the other place. On that basis, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I had a very interesting meeting with his honourable friend. I merely wish to send the Bill to the other House with some of those comments on record. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	An amendment (privilege) made.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Adonis.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.